OVERVIEW
Luke set out the theme of Acts in Jesus’ words, “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). Behind these words stands Deuteronomy 19:15, with its requirement that every matter be established by two or three witnesses (cf. A. A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977], esp. 128–53). In his gospel, Luke frequently highlighted such matters as (1) the witness of the Scriptures coupled with the ministry of Jesus and the witness of the Spirit, (2) the pairings of the disciples in their journeys on behalf of Jesus (cf. 10:1), and (3) the two angels at the tomb (cf. 24:4, whereas Mt 28:2–5 and Mk 16:5 have only one). In his organization of the common tradition in his gospel he set up a number of parallels between Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (4:14–9:50) and his ministry in the regions of Perea and Judea (9:51–19:27). So in Acts, Luke continues his pairings of apostolic men in their ministries: Peter and John in 3:1, 3–4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14; Barnabas and Saul in 11:25–26; 12:25; 13:2; Paul and Barnabas in 13:43, 46, 50; 15:2, 12, 22, 35; Judas and Silas in 15:32; Barnabas and Mark in 15:39; Paul and Silas in 15:40; 16:19, 25; 17:4, 10; and Silas and Timothy in 17:14–15; 18:5.
Luke also sets up a number of parallels between the ministry of Peter in the first half of Acts and the ministry of Paul in the last half: both heal a lame man (3:2–8; 14:8–10); both do miracles at some distance (5:15; 19:12); both exorcise evil spirits (5:16; 16:18); both defeat sorcerers (8:18–24; 13:6–11); both raise the dead (9:36–43; 20:9–12); both defend themselves against Jewish authorities (4:8–12; 5:27–32; 22:3–21; 23:1–6; 28:25–28); both receive heavenly visions (10:9–16; 16:9); both are involved in bestowing the Holy Spirit on new converts (8:14–17; 19:1–7); and both are miraculously released from prison (5:19; 12:7–11; 16:25–27). More important, both proclaim the same message and even use to some extent the same set of proof texts (e.g., Ps 16:10; cf. 2:27; 13:35).
It is from Jesus’ declaration about the apostles’ witness as given in 1:8 that Luke derives the framework for his narrative of Acts. Thus he goes on to portray first of all the mission of the Jerusalem apostles and their colleagues within the Jewish world, and then the mission of Paul and his companions within the Gentile world. He sets out all this in six panels or blocks of material—three of them dealing with the mission to Jews and three with the mission to Gentiles.
PANEL 1—THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM (2:42–6:7)
OVERVIEW
Acts 2:42–6:7, which is the first of Luke’s six panels, describes the earliest days of the church at Jerusalem and covers the first three to five years of the new messianic movement, from about AD 30 to the mid-30s. Luke deals with the events of this period by means of a thesis paragraph, which is then followed by a series of vignettes illustrating that paragraph. In 1:1–2:41 he dealt in some detail with the constitutive events of the Christian mission. Had he continued on at that rate, his second book would have been inordinately long. So in depicting the early apostolic missions to Jews and Gentiles, Luke uses illustrative vignettes and portrayals of representative situations drawn from many experiences within the early church to present his material more succinctly. The purpose in all he presents was, it appears, to enable his readers to experience something of what God was doing by his Spirit through the witness of the apostles.
OVERVIEW
In addition to the six summary statements found at 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; and 28:31, each of which concludes one of the six panels, Acts also has in its first panel three short, introductory paragraphs: 2:42–47; 4:32–35; and 5:12–16. The latter two introduce blocks of material that follow them, with the specific details of those materials directly related to their respective introductory paragraphs. The first of these paragraphs (2:42–47), however, is longer than the other two and introduces the entire first panel.
Rather than credit this paragraph to some supposed “Recension B” of a Jerusalem-Caesarean source (so Harnack), or partly to an older body of source material and partly to Luke’s redaction (so J. Jeremias, L. Cerfaux, P. Benoit, though variously), I take vv.42–47 to be Luke’s own thesis paragraph on the state of the church in its earliest days at Jerusalem. And I take the rest of the first panel to be explicating by means of a series of vignettes the various points made in this first thesis paragraph.
42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
COMMENTARY
42 In his description of the early church, Luke begins by observing that believers were distinguished by their devotion to (1) “the apostles’ teaching,” (2) “the fellowship,” (3) “the breaking of bread,” and (4) “prayer.” The verb translated “devoted” (proskartereō, GK 4674) connotes a steadfast and single-minded fidelity to a certain course of action. Luke uses it elsewhere in Acts to characterize the devotion of the 120 in the upper room to prayer (1:14) and the apostles’ resolve in the matter of the Hellenistic widows to focus their attention on prayer and the ministry of the word (6:4).
“The apostles’ teaching” refers to material considered authoritative because it was the message about Jesus of Nazareth that was proclaimed by accredited apostles. It seems to have included an account of Jesus’ earthly ministry, passion, and resurrection (cf. 2:22–24), a compilation of his teachings (cf. 20:35), and a declaration of what all this meant for human redemption (cf. 1Co 15:3–5)—all of which was viewed as a Christian “tradition” (paradosis, GK 4142) that could be passed on to others (cf. 1Co 11:2; 1Th 2:13; 2Th 2:15; 3:6). The number of references to teachers, teaching, and tradition within Acts and the letters to the churches (here, as well as in Ro 6:17; 12:7; 16:17; 1Co 11:2; 14:26; 2Th 2:15; 3:6; Jas 3:1), together with the frequent linking of prophets and teachers in the NT (cf. Ac 13:1; 1Co 12:28; 14:6; Eph 4:11), suggests that the creative role of prophecy in the early church was balanced by the conserving role of teaching. The early congregation at Jerusalem, along with its lively eschatological expectation and amid its differences of perspective, had a general “sense of center” that was provided by the historical and doctrinal teaching of the apostles. And this teaching, Luke tells us, was the raison d’être and focus of the early Christian community.
The definite article in the expression “the fellowship” (tē koinōnia, GK 3126) implies that there was something distinctive in the gatherings of the early believers. With the influx of three thousand on the day of Pentecost and daily increases to their number after that (cf. 2:47), they must have had some externally recognizable identity. Perhaps in those early days others thought of them as simply a “synagogue of Nazarenes” (cf. the accusation of Tertullus in 24:5, which links them to “the Nazarene sect”) and accorded them a place among other such groups within the mosaic that made up Second Temple Judaism. But the Christian community was not just a sect of Judaism, even though they continued to observe Jewish rites and customs and had no intention of breaking with the nation or its institutions. They held to the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth in the redemptive program of God and in their worship. Their proclamation of Jesus as Israel’s promised Messiah and humanity’s Lord set them apart in Jerusalem as a distinguishable entity.
Just what is meant by “the breaking of bread” has been often debated. Is Luke here referring to some type of Jewish fellowship meal, like the Haburah meals of the Pharisees, which expressed the believers’ mutual love and recalled their earlier association with Jesus—but was devoid of any paschal significance, as Paul later (rather illegitimately) saw in it (so Hans Lietzmann)? Or was it even in these early years a commemoration of Christ’s death, in line with Paul’s later elaboration (so J. Jeremias)? Or was it at first an agapē feast that emphasized the joy of communion with the risen Lord and of fellowship with one another—which Paul later (quite legitimately) understood also to have paschal significance, in line with the intention of Jesus (so Oscar Cullmann)? The matter is somewhat difficult to determine. For while 2:42 and 20:7 may relate to the full Pauline understanding as expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:24, and while Luke referred to “the breaking of bread” in that way in his passion narrative at Luke 22:19, elsewhere Luke uses “breaking bread” for an ordinary meal (cf. Lk 24:30, 35; Ac 20:11; 27:35) and he seems to have in mind an ordinary meal in 2:46.
Yet it is difficult to believe that Luke meant only an ordinary meal in 2:42, placing the expression, as he does, between two such religiously loaded terms as “the fellowship” and “prayer.” Every meal among Jews, of course, would have had something of a sacred character. And in a Christian setting, where hearts were warmed by devotion, it would have been an occasion for joy, love, and praise, with all such devotion inevitably connected with Jesus’ ministry and death on behalf of his people. Probably, therefore, “the breaking of bread” should be understood here in v.42 not only as denoting joyful devotion to Jesus but also as connoting the passion of Christ, although there may well have been a deepening of understanding with regard to Christ’s passion as the church’s theology came more into focus, in accord with Paul’s later elaboration of it.
References to “prayer” are frequent in Acts, both in the summary statements and the narrative (in addition to 2:42, see 1:14, 24; 4:24–31; 6:4, 6; 9:40; 10:2, 4, 9, 31; 11:5; 12:5; 13:3; 14:23; 16:25; 22:17; 28:8). For just as in Luke-Acts there appears the parallelism of the Spirit’s work in the ministry of Jesus and the Spirit’s work in the mission of the church, so there appears the parallelism between prayer in the life of Jesus and prayer in the life of the church. Luke’s use of the definite article and the plural in speaking of “the prayers” (tais proseuchais, GK 4666) suggests formal prayers, probably both Jewish and Christian. It seems, therefore, that the earliest believers not only viewed the old forms as having been filled with new content but also fashioned new vehicles for their praise. In addition, it is not difficult to envision them as praying extemporaneously, with those more informal prayers being built on past models—such as can be seen in Mary’s Magnificat (Lk 1:46–55), Zechariah’s Benedictus (Lk 1:67–79), and Simeon’s Nunc Dimittis (Lk 2:28–32).
43 Luke notes that a lingering sense of awe rested on many who did not take their stand with the Christians and that miraculous things were done by the apostles. “Everyone” (pasē psychē, lit., “every soul”), in contradistinction to “all the believers” (pantes hoi pisteuontes) of v.44, refers hyperbolically to nonbelievers in Jerusalem who knew of the events of Pentecost and were observing the life of the early congregation in the months that followed. In the expression “wonders and miraculous signs” (terata kai sēmeia; GK 5469, 4956), Luke picks up the phraseology of Joel’s prophecy (cf. 2:19) and Peter’s characterization of Jesus’ ministry (cf. 2:22). Luke probably used it to suggest that the miracles done by the apostles should be taken as evidences of the presence of God with his people, just as in the ministry of Jesus the miracles done by him showed that God was with him. The use of the verb ginomai in the imperfect tense (“were done”) denotes that such awe and miracles were no momentary phenomena but continued to be features associated with the church during those early days.
44–45 Within the Christian congregation at Jerusalem, the believers’ sense of spiritual unity expressed itself in communal living and sharing with the needy members of their group. While Acts implies that overt persecution of Christians came somewhat later, it may be assumed that in certain instances various economic and social sanctions were imposed on the early believers. In fact, the communal life described in vv.44–45 should probably be understood, at least in part, as a response to these pressures, for such treatment of minority groups is not uncommon, as, sadly, both ancient and contemporary history show. In addition, analogies between the early Jewish Christians and the Dead Sea covenanters at Qumran suggest that the early believers in Jesus, while stressing the primacy of spiritual community, also reflected a practice common to various Jewish sects—a practice especially prominent in the Qumran community—of holding possessions and goods in common. The repeated use of the imperfect tense in these two verses (five times) shows that this was the early Christians’ established practice, which involved both their real estate (“possessions,” ktēmata, GK 3228) and their personal possessions (“goods,” hyparxeis, GK 5638).
46 Here Luke shows that the early Jerusalem believers expressed their faith through daily adherence to the accustomed forms of their Jewish heritage. They not only ate together in their homes in a spirit of gladness and sincerity; they also found a large measure of favor among the people. “Every day” (kath’ hēmeran) applies to the whole sentence (which the NIV breaks into two sentences) as far as the words “all the people” in the middle of v.47 and ties together a number of complementary ideas.
The favorite meeting place of the early believers was in the temple (cf. Lk 24:53) at the eastern edge of the outer court called Solomon’s Colonnade (cf. 3:11; 5:12). There, in typically Semitic fashion, they carried on their discussions and offered praise to God. As Jews who were Christians and Christians who were Jews, they not only considered Jerusalem to be their city but continued to regard the temple as their sanctuary and the Mosaic law as their law. Evidently they thought of themselves as the faithful remnant within Israel—those for whom all the institutions and customs of the nation existed. As such, their refocused eschatological hopes (cf. Mal 3:1) and all their desires to influence their own people were associated with the city of Jerusalem, with the Jerusalem temple, and with the Mosaic law. For both theological and practical reasons, therefore, as well as because of the inevitable tug of the traditional, the early Christians in Jerusalem sought to retain their hold on the religious forms they had inherited and to express their new faith through the categories of the old.
But while they met formally for discussion and worship in the temple precincts, they took their meals in their own homes (kat’ oikon, lit., “by households,” GK 3875). The noun trophē (“food,” “nourishment,” GK 5575) in the Greek statement “they were sharing in the food” (metelambanon trophēs; NIV, “ate together”; NASB, “were taking their meals together”) implies a substantial meal (cf. 9:19; 27:33–34), which they ate with gladness and sincerity of heart.
47a In Luke’s writings, “the people” (ho laos, GK 3295) usually refers to Israel as the elect nation to whom the message of redemption was initially directed and for whom (together with the Gentiles) it is ultimately intended (e.g., 3:9; 4:10; 5:13). Later in the narrative of Acts the attitude of “the people” becomes more and more antagonistic to the Christian gospel and its missionaries. But in this first panel we have a response of the people that is largely favorable toward the early Christians and their manner of life. This cannot be said for the attitude of the Sadducees as depicted in 4:1–22 and 5:17–40. Later in the commentary, reasons will be given for the change of attitude on the part of the people—a change that begins with Acts’ second panel and worsens as the narrative develops. What can be said here is that Luke in this panel of material attempts to show, both by his emphasis on the early Christians’ meeting in the temple courts and by his highlighting of the favor accorded them by the people, that early Christianity is the fulfillment of all that is truly Jewish and that it directed its mission first to the Jewish world. And Luke continues throughout Acts to stress these themes.
47b Luke’s thesis paragraph on the state of the early church at Jerusalem concludes with the triumphant note, “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved”—a note that runs throughout this first panel but is not confined to it. It is the Lord himself who adds to his church, and thus the title ho kyrios (“the Lord”) appears first in the sentence not only for grammatical reasons but also for emphasis. The force of the present participle tous sōzomenous (“those being saved,” GK 5392) is iterative, thus suggesting that they were added as they were being saved. For a discussion of the expression “to their number” (epi to auto), see Notes, v.41 above and v.47 below.
NOTES
42 The Greek text of Codex Bezae (D) adds ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (en Ierousalēm, “in Jerusalem”) after τῶν ἀποστόλων (tōn apostolōn, “of the apostles”), which is a needless Western expansion. The Latin text of bilingual Bezae, together with the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, and Coptic Sahidic and Bohairic versions, reads, “in the fellowship of the breaking of bread.”
44 Luke uses the substantival participle οἱ πιστεύοντες (hoi pisteuontes, “those who were believing”; NIV, “the believers”; NASB, “who had believed”) as a designation for Christians. It may be debated whether the participle is to be read in the present tense (οἱ πιστεύοντες, hoi pisteuontes, as in A C D E P and most of the minuscules), thereby highlighting their present state of believing, or in the aorist tense (οἱ πιστευσάντες, hoi pisteusantes, as in א B and some minuscules; also 4:32), thus suggesting their acceptance of the Christian faith at some time in the past, whether recent or remote.
The phrase ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (epi to auto), which appears here and in v.47, is difficult to translate (NIV, NASB, “were together”). It probably parallels the use of the Hebrew term yaḥad, “the gathered fellowship” (GK 3480) at Qumran.
45 Codex Bezae (D), as reflected also in the Syriac Peshitta version, reads καὶ ὃσοι κτήματα εἴχον ἤ ὑπάρξεις (kai hosoi ktēmata eichon ē hyparxeis, “and as many as had possessions and goods”), which is a needless qualifying of πάντες (pantes, “all”) in v.44.
The word κτῆμα (ktēma, GK 3228) literally means a possession of any kind but came to be restricted to “landed property,” “a field,” or “a piece of ground.” Its synonym ὕπαρξις (hyparxis, GK 5638), when used in tandem with ktēma, likely signifies more what would be called personal possessions apart from real estate.
46 This is the only occurrence of ἀφελότης (aphelotēs, GK 911; NIV, “sincere”; NASB, “sincerity”) in the NT, though it appears in second-century AD writings of Vettius Valens (153.30; 240.15) to mean “simplicity” or “generosity.”
47 Codex Bezae (D) reads ὃλον τὸν κόσμον (holon ton kosmon, “all the whole”) for ὃλον τὸν λαόν (holon ton laon, “all the people”), but such an expansion, while laudatory, misses the point Luke is making.
Codex Bezae (D) reads ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (en tē ekklēsia, “in” or “to the church”), which Erasmus incorporated into the TR and so is translated by the KJV. But such a reading domesticates the idiom “the gathered fellowship” (see note at v.44b). The word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia, “church”) first appears in the more reliable texts of Acts at 5:11.
OVERVIEW
Luke has spoken in 2:42–47 of the early Christians’ continued attendance at the temple, the wonders and miracles that the apostles did, the awe that many of the Jews felt, and the apostles’ teaching. Now he sets out a vignette that illustrates these things. Much like the Synoptic Gospels, which selected the healing of a leper as “exhibit A” to represent the nature of Jesus’ early ministry in Galilee (cf. Mk 1:40–45 par.), or John’s gospel, which used the healing of a Capernaum official’s son for the same purpose (cf. Jn 4:46–54), Luke now singles out this episode in the history of the early Jerusalem congregation to “bring the reader into the picture.” No doubt the episode at the time was well known and frequently recounted in the early church long before Luke wrote of it.
1One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. 2Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 5So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them.
6Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. 8He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. 9When all the people saw him walking and praising God, 10they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
1 The story of the healing of the crippled beggar begins with the rather straightforward statement that Peter and John went up to the temple at the time of prayer. In the better Greek MSS the pericope begins without a clear connective, using only the post-positive, mildly adversative de (“but” or “and”; NASB, “now”). Codex Bezae (D), however, apparently felt the need for a stronger connective and so began the episode with en de tais hēmerais tautais (“in those days”). Likewise, for purely stylistic reasons, the NIV and NRSV begin with “one day.” Such sensitivity on the part of translators, both ancient and modern, suggests that the story may have originally circulated among Christians separately and for its own sake.
That the apostles were living in Jerusalem immediately after Jesus’ ascension is in accord with his instructions to “stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24:49), “not [to] leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised” (Ac 1:4), and to begin their missionary activity there (Ac 1:8, cf. Lk 24:47). But what kept these Galilean disciples in Jerusalem after Pentecost, and, why did Jewish Christianity become centered in Jerusalem rather than Galilee? Ernst Lohmeyer’s thesis (Galiläa und Jerusalem [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936]) that there were really two centers of Christianity in Palestine from the earliest days—a Galilean center and a Jerusalemite center, and that Acts has blurred that early situation by locating Galilean apostles in Judean Jerusalem—is not convincing (cf. L. E. Elliott-Binns, Galilean Christianity [London: SCM, 1956]). While there were certainly Christians “throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria” who formed themselves into congregations in those provinces (cf. 9:31), Paul’s letters, which are the earliest extant Christian writings, highlight the church at Jerusalem and associate the Galilean apostles directly with that church (cf. Gal 1:18–2:10; 1Th 2:14).
The early Christians looked to Jerusalem and to the church of that city as being of central importance. As God’s righteous remnant within Israel and as members of the Messiah’s eschatological community, the apostles, even though originally from Galilee, centered their activities in Jerusalem. Along with that went their continued adherence to Israel’s institutions and forms of worship. So Peter and John are presented as “going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon” (lit., “at the ninth hour”).
The stated times for prayer in Judaism were (1) early in the morning, in connection with the morning sacrifice; (2) at the ninth hour of the day, in connection with the evening (or afternoon) sacrifice; and (3) at sunset (cf. Str-B, 2.696–98). The imperfect verb anebainon (“they were going up,” GK 326) conveys a vivid visual impression of the apostles’ movement toward the Jerusalem temple. Going to the temple is always spoken of in terms of “going up” (e.g., Lk 18:10; Jn 7:14; cf. also Ac 11:2; 15:2; 18:22), principally out of reverential respect, though also because of geographical elevation.
2–3 The man is described as “crippled [NASB, lame] from his mother’s womb” (chōlos ek koilias mētros autou; NIV, “crippled from birth”) and having to be carried daily “to the temple gate called Beautiful” to beg for his living. Almsgiving was classed in Judaism as a meritorious act (cf. Str-B, 1.387–88). He was therefore placed at the gate so that those coming to the temple could gain merit by giving him a coin.
Just which temple gate is referred to as “the gate called Beautiful” is not easy to determine. Neither Josephus nor the Talmud refers to such a gate. And while Hellenistic Jews commonly called the entire temple complex “the temple” (to hieron, GK 2639) and reserved for the temple proper, with its porch, the names “Holy Place” and “Holy of Holies” (ho naos, GK 3724; cf. Str-B, 1.150–51), Luke does not always maintain this distinction in Luke-Acts. We cannot, therefore, depend on his use of to hieron as a guide to whether “the gate called Beautiful” had to do with the outer court or one of the inner courts.
Since the fifth century AD, the Eastern Gate (or Shushan Gate, so called because it portrays the palace of Shushan, or Susa), which is on the eastern side of the outer court and remained standing after the destruction of Jerusalem, has been identified by many as the Beautiful Gate. The weight of evidence from Josephus (Ant. 15.410–25; J.W. 5.190–221) and the Mishnah (m. Mid. 1:3–4; 2:3), however, favors identifying the Beautiful Gate with the Nicanor Gate, which was named for someone named “Nicanor,” who in a perilous storm desired to be thrown overboard with the gate during its transport from Alexandria to Jerusalem and for whose sake a miracle occurred that preserved both the gate and Nicanor (cf. m. Yoma 3:10). This gate led from the eastern part of the outer court (court of the Gentiles) into the first of the inner courts (court of the women). Josephus (J.W. 5.201) describes it as having been overlaid with Corinthian bronze and says that it “far exceeded in value those plated with silver and set in gold.”
4–6 In response to the beggar’s request for money, Peter fixed his eyes on him and said, “Look at us!” Thinking he had a benefactor, the beggar looked up expectantly. To his astonishment he heard the words, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” In Semitic thought a name does not just identify or distinguish a person; it expresses the very nature of his being. Hence the power of the person is present and available in the name of that person. Peter, therefore, does not just ask the risen Jesus to heal the crippled beggar but pronounces over him the name of Jesus, thereby releasing the power of Jesus (cf. 3:16; 4:10). And the power of the risen Jesus, coupled with the man’s response of faith (cf. 3:16), effects the healing.
7–10 The healing is described as instantaneous, accomplishing in a moment what God in his providence, through normal healing processes, usually takes months to do. The effect on the man was traumatic.
Some commentators have complained that v.8 is structurally overloaded in comparison with the rest of the narrative, what with all the walking about and jumping and praising God going on. Such a comment only reflects our jaded sensibilities in the presence of divine grace. Certainly it would have been hard to convince the man himself that his response was excessive. As for the people, they were “filled with wonder and amazement.” What was taking place was but a token, to those who had eyes to see, of the presence of the messianic age, of which the prophet had long ago predicted: “Then will the lame leap like a deer” (Isa 35:6).
NOTES
1 The inclusion of John along with Peter has often been credited to Luke’s redactional activity alone, since (1) John seems to be somewhat tacked on in v.4, (2) Peter speaks in the singular in v.6, and (3) John remains very much the silent partner throughout. But while Luke is obviously interested in developing his two-witness motif wherever possible, it was not unusual in the church’s traditions for Peter to take the lead and overshadow his colleagues. Luke could not very well have had them address the crippled beggar in unison, particularly if the miracle occurred principally in response to Peter’s invocation of Jesus’ name.
Codex Bezae (D) adds τὸ δειλινόν (to deilinon, “toward evening”) after “going up to the temple” and before “at the time of prayer,” which is a needless expansion.
2 The noun κοιλία (koilia, GK 3120) means both “stomach” and “womb” and appears in the NT with both meanings. Luke always uses it in the latter sense (cf. Lk 1:15, 42; Ac 14:8).
6 The shorter command περιπάτει (peripatei, “walk,” GK 4344) is better attested externally (א B D and the Coptic Sahidic version), though ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει (egeire kai peripatei, “arise and walk”) also appears widely in the textual sources (A C and many of the Fathers). The longer version may have been influenced by such well-known passages as Matthew 9:5; Mark 2:9; Luke 5:23; and John 5:8. It may, however, have been omitted as superfluous, since Peter in v.7 raises up the crippled man.
7 The adverb παραχρῆμα (parachrēma, “instantly”) is a favorite expression of Luke that appears in Luke 1:64; 4:39; 5:25; 8:44, 47, 55; 13:13; 18:43; 19:11; 22:60; Acts 3:7 (here); 5:10; 12:23; 13:11; 16:26, 33 (D has it also at Ac 14:10). Elsewhere in the NT it is used only in Matthew 21:19–20.
9 On Luke’s use of ὁ λαός (ho laos, “the people”), see comments at 2:47a.
OVERVIEW
Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade is in many ways similar to his sermon at Pentecost (2:14–41). Structurally, both move from proclamation to a call for repentance. The Pentecost sermon, however, is finished and polished, whereas the Colonnade sermon is rather rough-hewn. Thematically, both focus on the denial and vindication of Jesus of Nazareth, but the Colonnade sermon expresses more of a remnant theology than the sermon at Pentecost. Furthermore, it reflects a more generous attitude toward Israel, though coupled with a greater stress on the nation’s responsibility for the Messiah’s death, and it makes explicit the necessity of receiving God’s grace by faith. Christologically, Peter’s sermon here, like his defense in 4:8–12, incorporates a number of archaic and primitive titles used of Jesus within early Jewish Christianity.
It may seem strange for Luke to place two similar sermons of Peter so close together in his narrative. But his putting the Pentecost sermon in the introductory section of Acts was evidently meant to be a kind of paradigm of early apostolic preaching—a paradigm that Luke seems to have polished for greater literary effectiveness. As for the Colonnade sermon, Luke seems to have included it as an example of how the early congregation in Jerusalem proclaimed the message of Jesus to the people of Israel as a whole. Moreover, the material containing both the story of the miracle and Peter’s sermon probably came to Luke as something of a self-contained unit, which he evidently was willing, for the most part, to leave in the form he found it.
11While the beggar held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. 12When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.
17“Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. 19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.’
24“Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. 25And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ 26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
COMMENTARY
11 We are not given many of the stage directions for Peter’s Colonnade sermon. What we are told, however, is significant: (1) that the healed cripple “held on to” (kratountos, GK 3195) Peter and John so as to not let them get away (krateō is also used to describe a police arrest, as in Mt 14:3; 21:46; 26:4, 48, 50, 55, 57); (2) that “the people” came running to them in Solomon’s Colonnade; and (3) that they were all “astonished” at what had happened. Solomon’s Colonnade was a covered portico that ran the entire length of the eastern portion of the outer court of the temple precincts, along and just inside the eastern wall of the temple area (cf. 5:12; Jn 10:23).
12–16 The proclamation section of the sermon is an exposition on “the name of Jesus,” which is twice repeated in v.16. Structurally and syntactically, v.16 is the most difficult verse in the chapter, probably because Luke chose to do less editorial polishing on this verse since he saw that it contained the statement of Peter’s theme.
The sermon begins by denying that it was through the apostles’ “own power or godliness” that the crippled man was healed. Rather, “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” brought about the healing and, through doing so, glorified Jesus. Just as Peter earlier spoke of God as the true author of Jesus’ miracles (cf. 2:22), so here he attributes solely to God such wonders as occurred in the apostles’ ministries. And just as Jesus’ miracles were done by God to accredit him before the people (cf. again 2:22), so miracles continued to be done through the apostles in order for God to glorify Jesus.
The sermon focuses on God’s “servant Jesus,” whom Israel had disowned and killed, but whom God raised from the dead. It is through his name and the faith that comes through him that the healing of the crippled beggar occurred. In speaking of Jesus, Peter uses a number of primitive and archaic christological titles, whose concentration in these few verses has often been rightly considered by scholars as highly significant.
The sermon begins and ends by ascribing to Jesus the title “God’s Servant” (ho pais [GK 4090] autou, vv.13, 26), which echoes the Servant theme of Isaiah 42–53 (cf. “[God] has glorified his servant Jesus” of v.13 with “my servant … will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted” of Isa 52:13) and the theme of Moses as prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19 (cf. the “raising up” motif of Ac 3:22, 26 with Dt 18:15, 18). It includes the titles “the Holy One” (ho hagios, GK 41, v.14) and “the Righteous One” (ho dikaios, GK 1465, v.14), the ascription “the author of life” (ho archēgos tēs zōēs, v.15), and a reference to Jesus as “a prophet like me [Moses]” (ho prophētēs hōs eme, vv.22–23). And it stresses “the name of Jesus” as the powerful agent in the miracle—a significant fact since “the Name” (to onoma, GK 3950) was a pious Jewish surrogate for God and connoted his divine presence and power.
17–18 What strikes the reader immediately in the call-to-repentance section of Peter’s Colonnade sermon is its attitude toward Israel, which in its hopeful outlook is unmatched in the rest of the NT (except for certain features in Paul’s discussion in Ro 9–11). In v.12 Peter addresses his audience as “men of Israel” and in v.13 speaks of God as “the God of our [hymōn] fathers.” And though he had emphasized Israel’s part in crucifying Jesus (vv.13–15), he now magnanimously says that they had acted “in ignorance” and, somewhat surprisingly, includes their leaders in this characterization. Then he mitigates their guilt still further by saying that God himself had willed it in order to fulfill the words of the prophets.
19–21 Even more positively, Peter goes on to say that if his hearers repent, their repentance will have a part in ushering in the great events of the end-times (cf. the idea of purpose expressed in the conjunction hopōs, “that,” which starts v.20). Evidently Luke wants us to understand Peter’s call to repentance as being set within the context of a remnant theology and as being quite unlike Stephen’s attitude (cf. ch. 7). He also wants us to view the earliest proclamation of the gospel in the Jewish world as a kind of intramural effort, with a self-conscious, righteous remnant issuing prophetic denunciations of Israel’s part in the crucifixion of their Messiah and appealing to the people to turn to God in repentance for the remission of their sins.
The call to repentance is tersely stated (v.19a). Then it is elaborated in words unique in the NT and reflective of Jewish remnant theology: “Repent, then, and turn to God,” says Peter, “so that your sins may be wiped out”—and, further, so that there may be brought about the promised “times of refreshing,” when with the coming of God’s “appointed” Messiah (ton prokecheirismenon [GK 4741] Christon, lit., “the foreordained Christ,” v.20) God will “restore everything” (v.21). The expressions “times of refreshing” (kairoi anapsyxeōs, GK 2789, 433) and “times to restore everything” (chronōn [GK 5989] apokatastaseōs pantōn, v.21) are without parallel in the NT, though the verb apokathistēmi (“restore,” GK 635), the verbal form of apokatastasis (“restoration,” GK 640), is often used in the LXX of the eschatological restoration of Israel (cf. Jer 15:19; 16:15; 24:6; 50:19 [27:19 LXX]; Eze 16:55; Hos 11:11).
Some see vv.19b–21 as representing two distinctly different Christologies, based on the supposed chronological ambiguity of these verses—an ambiguity claimed to be found in the words “that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” J. A. T. Robinson (“The Most Primitive Christology of All?” JTS 7 [1956]: 177–89) argued that here we probably have “the most primitive Christology of all” (cf. his Twelve New Testament Studies [London: SCM, 1962], 139–53). Taking the expression “the foreordained Christ” to be an affirmation that messiahship was for Jesus a matter for the future, he argued (expressing a Bultmannian position) that Jesus was considered by the earliest believers to be the “Messiah-designate” who was awaiting the future coming of the Son of Man, with this latter title referring to a heavenly personage other than Jesus, and not Jesus himself, who would at his coming appoint Jesus to be Israel’s Messiah. Robinson believed that in 3:19–21 there appears an outcropping of that earliest stratum of christological speculation, which must have quickly faded away and been replaced by the Christology of Acts 2 and the remainder of Acts 3—as well, of course, by the attribution of present messiahship to Jesus to be found throughout the rest of the NT. In fact, Robinson insisted, Jesus was first considered only Messiah-designate in the earliest congregation at Jerusalem, whereas later he was elevated in the thought of Christians to the actual rank of Messiah.
Robinson’s view has had a rather brief shelf life in the dispensary of theological opinion, principally because scholars came to see that it presented two significant exegetical difficulties. First, it imposed on vv.20–21 a rigid chronological structure unwarranted by the text itself. For while it is clear that Jesus is identified here as “the foreordained Christ” (NIV, “the Christ, who has been appointed for you”; NASB, “the Christ appointed for you”), the question as to when that messianic ordination took place, or would take place, is not anywhere as clear as Robinson assumed. One could just as well read v.20, “that he may send again the foreordained Christ,” with the Greek word palin (“again”) understood to be in mind, as “that he may send the foreordained and future Christ,” as Robinson assumed.
Second, Robinson’s interpretation made Luke appear incredibly naive in placing two distinct and differing Christologies, as Robinson would have it, side by side—one in v.18, which immediately precedes this passage, where the Messiah of God (ton Christon autou, “his Christ”) is identified as the one who suffered, and the other in vv.19–21, which contain a supposedly earlier view that messiahship was to be looked for only in the future. To argue that Luke included vv.19–21 only to refute them by the preface of v.18, as Robinson speculates may have been the case, is absurd. Luke could better have refuted such a supposedly earlier and erroneous Christology in vv.19–21 simply by omitting it. And to say that Luke did not recognize the discrepancy, as Robinson thinks more likely, is to make him astonishingly obtuse.
The fact is that Robinson has detached vv.19–21 from their context and then played on the looseness of expression that results when those verses are read out of context. He has imposed temporal strictures on the passage at that point where it is ambiguous when detached from its context. But Luke intended it to be read in context. And when read in its context, the passage sets up no contradictory messianology, though it may not be as chronologically precise as one might wish.
22–26 No group within Israel that considered itself to be God’s righteous remnant in the inauguration of the final eschatological days could expect to win a hearing among Jews without attempting to define its position vis-à-vis Israel’s great leaders of the past—particularly Abraham, Moses, and David. And this is exactly what Luke shows Peter doing as he concludes his call for repentance.
In vv.22–23 Peter does so with respect to Moses by quoting Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19 (“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me…. You must listen to him….”), to which is coupled Leviticus 23:29 (“Anyone who does not deny himself on that day must be cut off from his people”). These verses were widely accepted messianic proof texts of the time that emphasized the command to “listen to him” and added the injunction to obey “everything he tells you,” since disobedience results in being “cut off” from one’s people. Peter’s argument, though not stated, is implicitly twofold: (1) true belief in Moses will lead to a belief in Jesus, and (2) belief in Jesus places one in true continuity with Moses.
In v.24 Peter also relates faith in Jesus to David by alluding to Samuel and all the prophets who followed him and by insisting that they too “foretold these days.” It is, of course, difficult to find any prophecy of Samuel that could be applied to Jesus as explicitly as the words of Moses just quoted. But Samuel was the prophet who anointed David to be king and spoke of the establishment of his kingdom (cf. 1Sa 16:13; see also 13:14; 15:28; 28:17). Furthermore, Nathan’s prophecy regarding the establishment of David’s descendants, as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:12–16, was accepted in certain quarters within Second Temple Judaism as having messianic relevance (cf. 4Q174) and taken by Christians as having been most completely fulfilled in Jesus (cf. Ac 13:22–23, 34; Heb 1:5).
In v.25 Peter identifies commitment to Jesus as Messiah with the promise God made to Abraham by quoting Genesis 22:18 and 26:4: “Through your offspring [tō spermati sou] all nations on earth will be blessed.” What exegetically ties this portion with what has preceded it is the word sperma (GK 5065, lit., “seed,” meaning “offspring” or “descendants”), which appears in 2 Samuel 7:12 with reference to David’s descendants and in Genesis 22:18 and 26:4 with reference to the descendants of Abraham. On the basis of the Jewish exegetical principle gezerah shawah (“verbal analogy”: where the same words are applied to two separate cases it follows that the same considerations apply to both), Peter proclaims that the promise to Abraham has its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.
Peter’s call to repentance in this sermon is an expression of the remnant theology of the earliest Christian believers at Jerusalem. He addresses his hearers as “heirs of the prophets and of the covenant.” He uses both a pesher approach (“this is that”) and midrashic exegesis (gezerah shawah) in his treatment of Scripture. He concludes with an offer of blessing that is extended first to individuals of the nation of Israel: “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” (v.26). In the Greek sentence, the expression hymin prōton (“first to you”) comes first and so occupies the emphatic position. Many have thought that this stress on Israel “first” is a Pauline import by the hand of Luke (cf. 13:46; Ro 1:16; 2:9–10). But this understanding fails to appreciate the remnant context of the sermon and the remnant perspective expressed throughout it. Luke wants his readers to appreciate something of how the earliest Christian preaching began within a Jewish milieu. From this he will go on to tell how this preaching developed through the various representative sermons he later includes.
11 The differences here between the Alexandrian text (א A B C etc.) and the Western text (D) concern principally the location of Solomon’s Colonnade. According to the Alexandrian text, Peter and John heal a crippled man at “the gate called Beautiful” and then go into the temple; there in Solomon’s Colonnade they draw attention from the gathered crowd. This reading implies that Solomon’s Colonnade was within the Jerusalem temple. According to the Western text, however, “As Peter and John came out [of the temple], he [the crippled man] came with them while holding on to them; and others, being amazed, took up their position in Solomon’s Colonnade.” This reading suggests that Solomon’s Colonnade was located outside the temple precincts.
The Western scribe may have been attempting to make explicit what was seen to be implicit in Luke’s account. Perhaps the Alexandrian text is correct and the Western text wrong; or, conversely, the Western text is correct and the Alexandrian text wrong. It is likely, however, as noted in the comments at 3:2, that Luke’s use of “the temple” should not be used as a guide to whether “the gate called Beautiful” was one of the gates of the outer court or one of the gates of one of the inner courts. It may be that the scribe of Codex Bezae (D) thought he knew the exact location of Solomon’s Colonnade and wanted to correct Luke’s account.
12 On the address ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται (andres Israēlitai, “men of Israel”), see comments at 1:16; 2:14; and 2:22.
13 The designation of God as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” stems from God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:6. It was a common formula among Second Temple Jews (cf. the opening words of the Shemoneh Esrei (“Eighteen Benedictions”)—“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob”)—and occurs frequently in various forms in the NT (cf. Mk 12:26 par.; Ac 7:32). The Western text here and at 7:32 has the fuller form, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” as do also the MT and most LXX versions of Exodus 3:6, the opening words of the Shemoneh Esrei, and the Synoptic Gospels at Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; and Luke 20:37. The Alexandrian text may represent a “stylistic pruning,” with the Western reading then being preferred (as UBS4, with “God of” before Isaac and Jacob in brackets, and NRSV). Such a “stylistic pruning,” however, may reflect the Christian tradition from which Luke worked or Luke’s own redactional hand, and so be original to the text (cf. NIV, NASB).
13–26 On the Jewish and early Christian use of these titles, see my Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 32–47, 53–58, 104–9.
15 The title ἀρχηγὸν τῇς ζωῆς (archēgon tēs zōēs, “author/originator of life,” GK 795, 2437) is equivalent to ἡ σωτηρία (hē sōtēria, “the salvation, God’s salvation,” GK 5401), since both ζωή (zōē, “life”) and σωτηρία (sōtēria, “salvation”) are Greek translations of the one Hebrew word hāyâ (“be alive,” GK 2649; cf. 5:20).
16 C. C. Torrey, 14–16, declared the awkward syntax of this verse (lit., “and by faith in his name has his name made this man strong, whom you behold and know”) to be the result of Luke’s mistranslation of his Aramaic source. More likely, however, its structural difficulties are the result of Luke’s unwillingness to alter Peter’s somewhat cumbersome thesis statement, principally because he could not rework the repetition of the phrase τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (to onoma autou, “the name of him [Jesus]”) without losing Peter’s emphasis on “the name of Jesus.”
17 Peter’s stress on the Jews’ ignorance is reminiscent of Jesus’ words from the cross, recorded only in Luke 23:34: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (which is certainly a genuine logion, despite its omission in א A C D). This emphasis appears also in Paul’s preaching (cf. Ac 13:27; 17:30; Ro 10:2; 1Ti 1:13), but Stephen’s attitude is quite different (cf. Ac 7:51–53).
22–23 While Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19 is quoted here, its textual form is not according to either the MT or the LXX. Yet the Greek of v.23 corresponds remarkably well to the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 18:18–19 in 4QTestimonia (lines 5–8) of the Dead Sea Scrolls, thus suggesting, as de Waard, 79, argues, that “Luke draws here upon a Palestinian Jewish text tradition which is older than the composition of the speech” (see also de Waard, 21–24).
25 On Paul’s use of the “promise to Abraham” theme and the motif of Abraham’s “seed” (NASB; NIV, “offspring”), see Galatians 3:6–9, 14, 16–18, 29.
26 While in 3:15 the verb ἐγείρω (egeirō, “raise up,” GK 1586) is used of the resurrection of Jesus, here ἀνίστημι (anistēmi, “raise up,” GK 482) is used with evident reference to the same, in line with Luke’s usual practice (cf. 2:24, 32; 7:37; 13:30, 34; 17:31; though with 9:41 and 13:33 as exceptions) and in parallel with the wording of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18—“The Lord your God will raise up [ἀναστήσει, anastēsei] for you,” and “I will raise up [ἀναστήσω, anastēsō] for them”—and perhaps with the wording of 2 Samuel 7:12, which seems also to have been in Peter’s mind: “I will raise up [ἀναστήσω, anastēsō] your offspring to succeed you.”
OVERVIEW
As a direct outcome of the healing of the crippled beggar—and as a further illustration of the thesis paragraph of 2:42–47—Luke now presents a vignette concerning the arrest, trial, and witness of Peter and John. Source criticism, as noted earlier (see Introduction, pp. 682), has often taken the two arrests and appearances of the apostles before the Sanhedrin (4:1–22; 5:17–40) as simply two versions of the same event that were somehow brought together prior to Luke’s writing to form one of his sources (perhaps “Recension A” of the Jerusalem-Caesarean source, as proposed by Harnack) and of which 4:1–22 was probably the original and 5:17–40 a legendary expansion.
Joachim Jeremias (“Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 36 [1937]: 208–13) has shown that, far from being repetitious and therefore artificial in their dual inclusion, the two accounts accurately reflect a significant feature in Jewish jurisprudence and complement each other. Jewish law, as Jeremias pointed out, held that a person must be aware of the consequences of his crime before being punished for it. This meant that in noncapital cases the common people—as distinguished from those with rabbinic training, who, presumably, would know the law—had to be given a legal admonition before witnesses and could only be punished for an offense when they relapsed into a crime after due warning. Acts 4:1–22, therefore, presents the Sanhedrin as judging that the apostles were “unschooled, ordinary men” (v.13) and tells how they were given a legal warning not to speak any more in the name of Jesus (v.17). But Acts 5:17–40 tells how the Sanhedrin reminded the apostles of its first warning (v.28) and turned them over to be flogged because they had persisted in their sectarian ways (v.40). Jeremias’s explanation has been rightly accepted by most commentators today.
This does not necessarily mean, however, that Luke himself clearly grasped the precise details of Jewish jurisprudence or that he was interested in detailing them for his readers. Likely, he simply found these two accounts in his sources, and, while they reflect the Jewish legal procedures of the day, they appealed to him and he used them because of the development of attitudes that they evidence. Jeremias’s explanation refers to the state of the tradition before the composition of Acts, not necessarily to Luke’s handling of the material. But it shows that we should not take the historicity of the narratives in Acts lightly just because Luke has used his sources for his own purposes.
1The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.
5The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family. 7They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
COMMENTARY
1 Luke has so skillfully woven his sources together that vv.1–4 not only conclude the narrative of the crippled beggar’s healing but also introduce the first appearance of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin. Linguistically, the adverbial participle lalountōn (“while they were speaking,” GK 3281) joins vv.1–4 with what has gone before, with the statement “the next day” (v.5) better taken as beginning a new unit of material. Yet topically vv.1–4 introduce what follows more than they conclude what has preceded.
The early opposition against the preaching of the gospel is shown by Luke as arising chiefly from priestly and Sadducean ranks—from “the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees.” The captain of the temple guard was the commanding officer of the temple police force. He was considered inferior in rank only to the high priest and had the responsibility of maintaining order in the temple precincts (cf. 5:24, 26; Josephus, J.W. 2.409–10; 6.294; Ant. 20.131, 208). The Sadducees were descendants of the Hasmoneans, who looked back to Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon (168–134 BC) as having inaugurated the messianic age (cf. Jub. 23:23–30; 31:9–20; 1 Macc 14:4–15, 41) and who saw themselves as perpetuating what their fathers had begun. As priests from the tribe of Levi, they claimed to represent ancient orthodoxy and were uninterested in innovations. Thus they opposed any developments in biblical law (i.e., the “Oral Law”), speculations about angels or demons, and the doctrine of the resurrection (cf. 23:8; Mk 12:18 par.; Josephus, J.W. 2.119, 164–65; Ant. 13.171–73; 18.11, 16–17). Likewise, they rejected what they considered to be vain hopes for God’s heavenly intervention in the life of the nation and for a coming Messiah, since, as they believed, the age of God’s promise had begun with the Maccabean heroes and was continuing on under their supervision. For them, the Messiah was an ideal, not a person, and the messianic age was a process, not a cataclysmic or even datable event. Furthermore, as Israel’s political rulers and its dominant landlords, to whom a grateful nation had turned over all political and economic powers during the time of the Maccabean supremacy, they stressed for entirely practical reasons cooperation with Rome and maintenance of the status quo. Most of the priests were of Sadducean persuasion; the temple police force was composed entirely of Levites; and the captain of the temple guard was always a high-caste Sadducee, as was each of the high priests.
2–3 The priests and Sadducees were “greatly disturbed” (diaponoumenoi, GK 1387) about two matters. First, the apostles were “teaching the people,” which was an activity the Sadducees saw as a threat to the status quo. Like their Master, Peter and John were rallying popular support and acting unofficially in a way that was viewed as disruptive to established authority—an authority vested in Sadducean hands. Second, Peter and John were annoying the Sadducees by “proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” This probably means they were attempting to prove from the fact of Jesus’ resurrection (note the phrase en tō Iēsou, “in [the case of] Jesus,” which suggests that his resurrection was the test case) the doctrine of a general resurrection (cf. 17:31–32; 23:6–8), which the Sadducees denied. So Peter and John were taken into custody by the temple guard (v.3). And since it was evening, they were put in prison until the Sanhedrin could be called together the next morning to judge their case.
4 Not everyone agreed with the Sadducees’ view of the activities and message of the apostles. Later in Acts, Luke will speak of (1) the tolerance of the people, (2) the moderation of the Pharisees, and (3) the desire of Rome for peace in the land, with each of these factors having a part in restraining the Sadducees from doing all they might have done to oppose the gospel and its early missionaries. Here, however, he notes that many who heard the message (ton logon, lit., “the word,” GK 3364) believed, with the result that the Jerusalem congregation grew to a total of about five thousand.
5 Though the Sadducees had among them the nation’s titular rulers, they were actually a minority party and could govern only through the Sanhedrin. Thus on the next day “the rulers” (hoi archontoi, GK 807, a frequent synonym for “the high priests”; cf. 23:5; Josephus, J.W. 2.333, 405, 407, 627–28), “the elders” (hoi presbyteroi, GK 4565), and “the teachers of the law” (hoi grammateis, GK 1208, often translated “scribes”) came together, with these three groups forming the Sanhedrin.
The Sanhedrin (to synedrion, “the council,” GK 5284) was the senate and supreme court of the nation and had jurisdiction in all noncapital cases. It also advised the Roman governors in capital cases. In one situation—that of Gentiles trespassing beyond the posted barriers into the inner courts of the temple—it could on its own inflict a sentence of death, even with respect to a Roman citizen (cf. 21:28–29; Josephus, J.W. 6.124–28). The Sanhedrin consisted of the high priest, who by virtue of his office was president, and seventy others, made up of members of the high priestly families, a few influential persons of various formal ideological allegiances or backgrounds within Judaism, and professional experts in the law drawn from both Sadducean and Pharisaic ranks. It was dominated by the Sadducees and probably came together mostly at their request. It met in a hall adjoining the southwestern part of the temple area, probably at the eastern end of a bridge spanning the Tyropean Valley and next to an open-air meeting place called the Xystos (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.344; 5.144; 6.354).
6 In stressing that the early opposition to Christianity arose principally from among the Sadducees, Luke makes the point that the Sadducean element was especially well represented in this first trial of the apostles: “Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family.” Annas was high priest for nine years, from AD 6–15, though he continued to exercise great influence after that and is seen in the NT as the real power behind the throne (cf. Lk 3:2; Jn 18:13–24). Caiaphas, his son-in-law, was high priest for eighteen years, from AD 18–36. Altogether, Annas arranged to have five of his sons, one son-in-law (Caiaphas), and one grandson appointed to the office of high priest. Just who John and Alexander were we do not know, though the Western text suggests that the first was Annas’s son Jonathan, who replaced Caiaphas in AD 36.
7 It was before such an assembly, which probably arranged itself in a semicircular fashion, that Peter and John were brought. The man who had been healed was also there (cf. v.14), though Luke does not say whether he had also been imprisoned or just called in as a witness. The apostles were called on to account for their actions, and they used the occasion for an aggressive evangelistic witness.
NOTES
1 Codices B and C read οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς (hoi archiereis, “the high priests,” GK 797), probably in an attempt to correlate v.1 with v.6, whereas א A D E read οἱ ἱερεῖς (hoi hiereis, “the priests,” GK 2636). The word ἀρχιερεύς (archiereus, “high priest”) appears 122 times in the NT, whereas ἱερεύς (hiereus, “priest”) appears only 31 times. It is likely that scribes substituted the more frequently used “high priest” for the less frequent “priest.” Evidently, however, the better-attested “priests” has in mind those priests serving in the Jerusalem temple at the time.
2 Codex Bezae (D) reads ἀναγγέλλειν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν νεκρῶν (anangellein ton Iēsoun en tē anastasei tōn nekrōn, “to proclaim Jesus in the resurrection of the dead”) instead of the better-attested καταγγέλλειν ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν (katangellein en tō Iēsou tēn anastasin tēn ek nekrōn, “to proclaim in the [case] of Jesus the resurrection of the dead”), which modification fails to understand the expression “in the case of Jesus” as an idiom.
4 Codex Bezae (D) adds the enclitic particle τέ (te, “also”) after ὁ ἀριθμός (ho arithmos, “the number,” GK 750), evidently to heighten the statement but at the expense of good literary style. On the number “five thousand,” see Notes, 2:41. The noun ἀριθμός (arithmos, “number”) probably means here the “total number,” as in 6:7 and 16:5 (cf. Dt 26:5; 28:62 [LXX]).
5 The Jewish Sanhedrin (τὸ συνέδριον, to synedrion; cf. 4:15; Lk 22:66; Jn 11:47; Josephus, Ant. 14.167–81) was also called “the Senate” (ἡ γερουσία, hē gerousia, GK 1172; cf. 5:21; Josephus, Ant. 12.138), “the Body of Elders” (τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, to presbyterion; GK 4564; cf. 22:5; Lk 22:66; Josephus, Ant. 13.428), “the Council” (ἡ βουλή, hē boulē, GK 1087; cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.331, 336), “the Hall of Hewn Stone” (Heb. liškâ haggāzît, which probably refers to the polished stones of the Xystos beside which it stood; cf. m. Mid. 5:4)—perhaps also “the Great Sanhedrin” (Heb. sanhēdrîn gedōlâ), “the Great Law Court” (Heb. bêt dîn haggādōl), and “the Sanhedrin of the Seventy One” (Heb. sanhēdrîn šel šibʿîm waʾeḥād).
6 The Western text (D, and as represented by recensions of the Old Latin and Vulgate) reads ᾿Ιωναθάς (Iōnathas, “Jonathan”) for the better-attested Alexandrian text (P74 א A B etc.) reading ᾿Ιωάννης (Iōannēs, “John”). Josephus (Ant. 18.4) says that Jonathan, son of Annas, was appointed high priest in AD 36 in succession to Caiaphas. The translator of D may have been attempting to correct Luke in accord with the tradition recorded by Josephus.
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.’
12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
COMMENTARY
8 In a context of a prophetic description of national calamities and cosmic turmoil, Luke has quoted Jesus as declaring:
But before all this, they [your adversaries] will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name…. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
Luke 21:12, 14–15
Luke was undoubtedly thinking of many incidents of opposition to the gospel message when he wrote these words. Indeed, he records a number of such happenings in Acts. But certainly when he wrote about Peter’s first defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin—as well as when he wrote about the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin in 5:17–40—these words were ringing in his ears. For almost every item of Jesus’ oracle is exemplified in Luke’s account of Peter’s situation, attitude, and message here in Acts. The use of the aorist passive (plētheis, “filled,” GK 4437) in the expression “filled with the Holy Spirit” denotes a special moment of inspiration that complements and brings to a functional focus the presence in every believer’s life of the person and ministry of God’s Spirit.
9–10 Peter’s defense focuses on the healing of the crippled man as being (1) “an act of kindness” that was (2) effected “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead.” Luke uses the verb anakrinomai (“judge,” “call to account,” GK 373), which in classical Greek meant “a preliminary inquiry,” and so may be seen to reflect in its use here something about the nature of first-century Jewish jurisprudence. However, though Luke found this word anakrinomai with its attendant meaning in his sources, his use of the same word in 12:19; 24:8; and 28:18 indicates that he had no great desire to highlight the fact that this first appearance of the apostles before the Sanhedrin was only a preliminary inquiry. Peter’s message is specifically addressed to the “rulers and elders of the people” (v.8), though it also has “all the people of Israel” in mind (v.10).
11 The double sense of the verb sōthēnai (“to be saved,” GK 5392, v.12) to mean both “restoration to health” physically and “preservation from eternal death” spiritually allows Peter to move easily from the healing of the crippled man to the salvation of all humanity—and therefore from a defensive to an aggressive witness.
In Peter’s proclamation two quite early and primitive christological motifs come to the fore. The first is that of “the rejected stone,” which has become “the capstone” of the building. There was in Judaism a frequent wordplay between the words for “stone” (ʾeben) and “son” (bēn), which was rooted generally in the OT (cf. Ex 28:9; Jos 4:6–8, 20–21; 1Ki 18:31; Isa 54:11–13; La 4:1–2; Zec 9:16) and attained messianic expression in the combination of “the stone” and “Son of Man” images in Daniel (2:34–35; 7:13–14)—and which continued to be used through the early rabbinic period (cf. Gen. Rab. 68.11; Exod. Rab. 29; Tg. Ps-J. on Ex 39:7). It was for this reason, evidently, that Jesus concluded his parable of the vineyard and the rejected son (Mk 12:1–12 par.) with the quotation of Psalm 118:22–23: “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” And it is this motif that Peter, building on the accepted associations of “stone” and “son,” picks up in his quotation of Psalm 118:22.
In Testament of Solomon 22:7–23:4, which is Jewish material from the first century AD, the expression “the stone at the head of the corner” (ho lithos [GK 3345] eis kephalēn gōnias [GK 1224]) unambiguously refers to the final capstone or copestone placed on the summit of the Jerusalem temple to complete the whole edifice. Peter quotes Psalm 118:22 in this connection. Yet there are also instances within contemporary Jewish writings of “stone imagery” referring to a “foundation stone” that use Isaiah 28:16 for support (cf. 1QS 8.4; b. Yoma 54a). Apparently “stone imagery” was used variously in Second Temple Judaism. This same variety is reflected in the NT, for there the three christological stone passages (in addition to Mk 12:10–11 par. and Ac 4:11; cf. Lk 20:18; Ro 9:33; 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 2:4–8) have varying nuances. Here, however, while elsewhere in the NT the ideas of a “foundation stone” and a “stumbling stone” (based respectively on Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14) are present, the thought of Jesus as the rejected stone that becomes the capstone or copestone and so completes the edifice is dominant (cf. Ps 118:22).
12 A second early christological motif in Peter’s proclamation is that of “God’s Salvation.” In the longer Isaiah scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, “God’s Salvation” and “Salvation” appear as Jewish designations for the expected Davidic Messiah (cf. 1QIsa 51.4–5, which uses the third person masculine suffix and pronoun in connection with the expression “my Salvation”). Likewise, “Salvation” is used as a messianic title in other Qumran texts (cf. CD 9:43, 54; 1QH 7.18–19; 4Q174 on 2Sa 7:14 and in connection with Am 9:11), in various intertestamental writings (cf. Jub. 31:19; also T. Dan 5:10; T. Naph. 8:3; T. Gad 8:1; T. Jos. 19:11, though the provenance of the Greek version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is debated), and in the rabbinic materials (cf. b. Ber. 56b–57a).
Luke has already stressed this early christological motif in Zechariah’s hymn of praise (Lk 1:69, “a horn of salvation”), in Simeon’s prayer (Lk 2:30, “your salvation”), and in introducing the ministry of John the Baptist (Lk 3:6, “God’s salvation”). Now in addressing the Sanhedrin, to whom such a messianic designation was doubtless well known, Peter proclaims, “Salvation is found in no one else [i.e., than in “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead” (v.10)], for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (v.12). There was nothing of compromise or accommodation in Peter’s preaching. As this magnificent declaration shows, he was wholly committed to the uniqueness of Jesus as the only Savior. Peter and the other apostles never watered down the fact that apart from Jesus there is no salvation for anyone.
NOTES
8 Some MSS add τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (tou Israēl, “of Israel”) after “elders,” evidently in the interest of symmetry in order to balance “rulers of the people” with “elders of Israel.” The shorter text, however, is supported by such Alexandrian texts as P74 א A B, as well as the Latin Vulgate, the Coptic Bohairic and Sahidic versions, and a number of church fathers.
10 Some Western texts (E, and as represented by recensions of the Old Latin and the Vulgate, as well as by Cyprian and the Venerable Bede) add καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενί (kai en allō oudeni, “and in/by no one else”) at the end of the verse. But the words are not supported by the better texts and seem to be influenced by v.12.
11 On the wordplay in Judaism between “stone” and “son,” see M. Black, “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” NTS 18 (1971): 11–14. On the stone of Psalm 118:22 as a “capstone” or “copestone,” see J. Jeremias, “Κεφαλὴ γωνίας—Ἀκρογωνιαῖος,” ZNW 19 (1930): 264–80; cf. TDNT 1.791–93; 4.271–80. See also my Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 50–53.
12 The translators of the Western text seem to have had trouble understanding the expression ἡ σωτηρία (hē sōtēria, “the salvation”) and have either omitted it (as D and one recension of the Old Latin) or omitted the first clause of this verse in which it is found (as other Old Latin recensions and such church fathers as Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine). On “God’s Salvation” as a messianic ascription in early Judaism, the NT, and postapostolic Christianity, see my Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 99–103.
13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”
18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
21After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. 22For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.
COMMENTARY
13–14 While literacy was high among Jews of the first century (cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.178; Philo, Legat. 210; m. ʾAbot 5:21), theological disputations required rabbinic training. Since the so-called ʿam haʾāreṣ (“people of the land”) had not had such training, they were thought to be incapable of carrying on sustained theological discussion. But here were Peter and John, whom the council observed to be “unschooled, ordinary men,” speaking fearlessly and confidently before the Jewish supreme court and senate. Their judges could not but wonder at such ordinary men having such a mastery of biblical argumentation (cf. Luke’s précis of their words in 3:22–26; 4:11–12). So they had to fall back on the only possible explanation: “these men had been with Jesus,” who despite his lack of rabbinic training taught “as one who had authority” (Mk 1:22). To this fact they directed their attention (cf. the use of the intensive verb epeginōskon, GK 2105; NIV, “took note”; NASB, “began to recognize”) as an important piece of evidence in the case before them.
Furthermore, just as Jesus’ teaching was coupled with demonstrations of miraculous powers, which reinforced among the people the impression of authority (e.g., Mk 1:23–28; 2:1–12), Peter and John were now beginning to do the same. There was no denying that the man had been healed. There he stood before them, physically regenerated at an age when regenerative cures do not occur of themselves (cf. v.22, “for the man … was over forty years old”). The miraculous, however, apart from an openness of heart and mind, is not self-authenticating. So the Sadducees’ preoccupation with protecting their own vested interests shut them off from understanding the significance of what had occurred.
15–17 Just how Luke knew what went on among the members of the Sanhedrin in closed session has often been debated. Was Saul (Paul) a member of the council at the time and later told Luke? Or had Paul heard the gist of the discussion from his teacher Gamaliel and then told it to Luke? Were there secret sympathizers in the council who leaked what was said to the apostles and from whom Luke picked it up? Or was the substance of the discussion inferred from what was said to Peter and John when they were brought back, and so became embedded in Luke’s source material? While the latter suggestion seems most probable, we are too far removed from the situation itself to be sure. What is certain about the council’s response is that (1) they would have denied the miracle if they could have; (2) they had no disposition to be convinced, either by what had happened or by the apostles’ arguments; and (3) they felt the need to stop the apostles’ activities and teaching and so resorted to the measures allowed by Jewish law.
18–20 The decision of the council was to impose a ban on the apostles that would both warn them and provide a legal basis for further action should such be needed (cf. 5:28). They therefore called in the apostles and warned them “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (epi tō onomati tou Iēsou). The prepositions epi (“on”) and en (“in”) are often used interchangeably in the NT, and therefore the phrase epi tō onomati tou Iēsou should probably be taken as synonymous with en tō onomati tou Iēsou (“in the name of Jesus,” cf. 2:38; so also the preposition eis in 8:16; 19:5).
But the council had before it men whose lives had been transformed by association with Jesus, by God’s having raised Jesus from the dead, and by the coming of the Holy Spirit. As with the prophets of old, God’s word was in the hearts of Peter and John like a burning fire, and they could neither contain it nor be restrained from speaking it (cf. Jer 20:9). They had been witnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry and resurrection (cf. 10:39–41). They had been commanded by their risen Lord to proclaim his name to the people (cf. 1:8; 10:42). When faced with this ban, their response was never in doubt: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (vv.19–20).
Established authority per se was not what the apostles believed they must stand against, for Jewish Christianity in its earliest days often accommodated itself to the established forms and functions of Judaism as a baby to its cradle. But where established authority stood in opposition to God’s authority—thereby becoming, in effect, demonic—the early believers in Jesus knew where their priorities lay and judged all religious forms and functions from a christocentric perspective.
21–22 The Sanhedrin had given its warning. And after stressing what would happen if it went unheeded (cf. the participial form of the verb prosapeileō, “threaten further”; GK 4653), they let them go. The moderation of the people prevented them from doing more, for “all the people were praising God for what had happened.” Yet a legal precedent had been set that would enable the council, if necessary, to take more drastic action in the future. Occasions for such action were soon to be multiplied, as Luke tells us in 5:12–16.
NOTES
13 The word ἀγράμματος (agrammatos, GK 63) is used in the nonliterary Greek papyri in the sense of “illiterate,” though it undoubtedly here means “unschooled” or “uneducated” in rabbinic training. The word ἰδιῶτης (idiōtēs, GK 2626), while at times signifying “ignorant” (cf. 1Co 14:23–24), is used here in its ordinary Greek sense of “ordinary person” or “commoner.” Codex Bezae (D) omits καὶ ἰδιῶται, probably because the dual attribution of “unschooled” and “ordinary” (NASB, “uneducated and untrained”) deprecated the apostles too much.
14–16 The Western text (D, and as represented in recensions of the Old Latin and Coptic versions) has a number of small changes that were evidently meant to enhance the action of the account. For example, it inserts in v.14 ποιῆσαι ἤ (poiēsai ē, “to do or”), so reading “they had nothing to do or to say in opposition”; it substitutes in v.15 the more picturesque word ἀπαχθῆναι (apachthēnai, “to be led out,” GK 552) for the more prosaic ἀπελθεῖν (apelthein, “to go out” or “withdraw,” GK 599); and it uses in v.16 the comparative φανερώτερον (phanerōteron) in the elative sense to mean “it is all too clear” rather than the simple φανερόν (phaneron, GK 5745), “it is clear.”
16–17 Haenchen, 218, caustically comments, “The author reports the closed deliberations as if he had been present.” His implication is that here Luke clearly reveals the fabricated nature of his work, inserting words on the lips of people when he had no possible knowledge of what was said. But while this may be one way to view the data, it is not the only way.
19 Peter and John had probably never heard of Socrates or read Plato’s report (Apol. 29d) of how Socrates responded to those who offered him freedom if he would only abandon the pursuit of truth: “I will obey God rather than you.” The parallel is probably analogical, not genealogical—i.e., the sort of response any person of principle would give in such a situation.
OVERVIEW
The church’s response to the apostles’ release was a spontaneous outburst of praise, psalmody, and petition, which begins in v.24 by addressing God as Despota (“Despot, Sovereign Lord”). This was a common title in the Greek world for rulers, and it appears occasionally in Jewish circles as a form of address to God (cf. 3 Macc 2:2; Lk 2:29; Rev 6:10). Its use is especially appropriate here in conjunction with the servant language used of David (v.25, pais sou, “your servant”), Jesus (vv.27, 30, ho hagios pais sou, “your holy servant”), and believers themselves (v.29, hoi douloi sou, “your servants”). Structurally, the church’s response includes an ascription to God drawn from Hezekiah’s prayer in Isaiah 37:16–20 (v.24b), a quotation of Psalm 2:1–2 (vv.25–26), the reference to Jesus’ passion in terms of the psalm just cited (vv.27–28), and a petition for divine enablement in the Christians’ present circumstances (vv.29–30).
23On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.’
27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
COMMENTARY
25–26 Two matters of theological interest in the prayer of the church stand out. First, there is a pesher treatment of Psalm 2 (see comments at 2:16) in which the groups enumerated in the psalm are equated with the various persons and groups involved in Jesus’ crucifixion: “the kings of the earth” with King Herod; “the rulers” with the Roman governor Pontius Pilate; “the nations” with the Gentile authorities; and “the people” with “the people of Israel.” The earliest suggestion that Psalm 2 had any messianic import in Jewish thinking appears in Psalms of Solomon 17:26, where “the Son of David,” who is also spoken of in 17:36 as “the Lord’s Anointed” (ho Christos kyriou), is presented as acting in terms of Psalm 2:9: “He will destroy the pride of the sinners as a potter’s vessel. With a rod of iron he will break in pieces all their substance.” More explicitly, Psalm 2:1–2 has been found as a messianic testimonia portion in 4QFlorilegium (Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q174) in connection with 2 Samuel 7:10–14 and Psalm 1:1. It seems, therefore, that sometime prior to the Christian period Psalm 2 was beginning to be used within Jewish nonconformist circles as a messianic psalm and that early Jewish Christians knew of this usage and approved of it—though, of course, with application to Jesus of Nazareth (cf. the use of Ps 2:7 in 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; and Ps 2:9 in Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).
27–28 Second, in the church’s prayer the sufferings of Christian believers are related directly to the sufferings of Christ and inferentially to the sufferings of God’s righteous servants in the OT. This theme of the union of the sufferings of Christ and those of his own is developed in many ways throughout the NT (cf. esp. Mk 8–10; Ro 8:17; Col 1:24; 1Pe 2:20–25; 3:14–4:2; 4:12–13). It reaches its loftiest expression in the metaphor of the body of Christ in Colossians and Ephesians.
29–30 Most significant is the fact that these early Christians were praying not for relief from oppression or for judgment on their oppressors, but for enablement from God “to speak your word with great boldness” amid opposition and for God to act in mighty power “through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (v.30). Their concern was for God’s word to go forth and for Christ’s name to be glorified—in effect, for the church’s witness—while leaving to God their own circumstances. With such prayer surely God is well pleased. Luke has evidently taken pains to give us this prayer so that it might serve as a pattern for our own praying.
31 As a sign of God’s approval, “the place where they were meeting was shaken” (cf. Ex 19:18; Isa 6:4) and “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (see comments at v.8). With such motivation and divine enablement, their prayer was answered. And they “spoke the word of God boldly” (meta parrēsias [GK 4244], “with boldness,” “confidently,” “forthrightly”; cf. meta pasēs parrēsias, “with all boldness,” at the close of Acts in 28:31).
NOTES
25 The Greek of v.25a is well attested (P74 א A B E et al.) but almost impossible to translate. C. C. Torrey, 17, called it “an incoherent jumble of words.” Various ancient scribes and many modern commentators have tried to delete either τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (tou patros hēmōn, “our father,” GK 1609) or διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου (dia pneumatos hagiou, “by the Holy Spirit”), or both. And many scholars have attempted to reconstruct the Greek syntax of these words in terms of a hypothetical Aramaic source. What we have in v.25a, however, appears to be “a primitive error,” as B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort called it, stemming either from the expression of the earliest Christians themselves and/or somehow incorporated into the source Luke used.
31 Codex Bezae (D) and a number of other Western witnesses (E, recensions of the Vulgate and Coptic versions, Ephraem of Syria’s commentary on Acts, and such church fathers as Irenaeus and Augustine) add at the end of the verse παντὶ τῷ θέλοντι πιστεύειν (panti tō thelonti pisteuein, “to everyone who wished to believe”). But this phrase is not supported by the better MSS and seems to be only a pious accretion to the text.
OVERVIEW
Returning to one of the themes in his thesis paragraph of 2:42–47, Luke now elaborates the nature and extent of the early believers’ commitment to one another in social concern. He does this by a summary statement, then by setting out a good example of genuine Christian concern, and finally by a disastrous example of deceit. The topic of Christian social concern, which appears in 2:42–47 quite naturally along with matters of fellowship and worship in the context of the believing community, also appears here in the context of the apostles’ proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection by its juxtaposition with the vignettes in 3:1–4:31 and the inclusion of v.33. For Luke, as well as for the early Christians, being filled with the Holy Spirit not only entailed proclaiming the Word of God but also sharing possessions with the needy because of the oneness of all believers in Christ.
OVERVIEW
Source-critical analyses of this passage have often concluded that the material is somewhat jumbled, with either vv.32–33 representing one of Luke’s sources and vv.34–35 being an editorial insertion, or vv.32, 34–35 stemming from an early source and v.33 being an editorial intruder. Underlying all such analyses is the assumption that v.32 and vv.34–35 speak of the same attitude toward property, and that either vv.34–35 must be a repetitious editorial comment or v.33 an editorial intrusion. In reality, however, v.32 and vv.34–35 express differing views of personal possessions and personal property: in the former, they are retained and shared; in the latter, they are sold and the proceeds distributed to those in need. Likewise, there seems to be a difference between v.32 and vv.34–35 in the attitude of the believers to such practices. In the former they are presented as customary and continuous, whereas in the latter such actions seem to be extraordinary responses to special needs.
In his opening summary statement of vv.32–35, Luke is (1) emphasizing that both continuous and extraordinary acts of Christian social concern were occurring in the early church, and (2) tying these acts into the apostolic proclamation of the resurrection. It was, in fact, because of such acts—and the recognition that they must always be an inextricable part of the Christian ministry—that God’s blessing rested on the early church.
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
COMMENTARY
32 The designation to plēthos tōn pisteusantōn (lit., “the multitude of believers”; NIV, “all the believers”; NASB, “the congregation of those who believed”) means the whole congregation (cf. 6:2, 5; 15:12, 30), whose allegiance to Jesus and one another is described by the common Hebraic idiom “one in heart and mind” (kardia kai psychē mia, lit., “one in heart and soul”; cf., e.g., Dt 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10). This sense of oneness extended to sharing their personal possessions with others in need (cf. 2:45).
Theologically, the early believers considered themselves the righteous remnant within Israel. So Deuteronomy 15:4 would have been in their minds: “There should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you.” Other Jewish groups who thought of themselves in terms of a remnant theology expressed their spiritual oneness by sharing their goods, and the Jerusalem church seems to have done likewise. Practically, they had many occasions for such sharing. For with the economic situation in Palestine steadily deteriorating because of famine and political unrest (cf. J. Jeremias, 121–22), employment was limited—not only for Galileans who left their fishing and farming for life in the Judean capital city, but also for the regular residents of Jerusalem who now faced economic and social sanctions because of their new messianic faith. And experientially, the spiritual oneness the believers found to be a living reality through their common allegiance to Jesus must, they realized, be expressed in caring for the physical needs of their Christian brothers and sisters. Indeed, their integrity as a community of faith depended on their acting in this manner.
In v.32 we have Luke’s illustration of his thesis statement in 2:44–45 regarding the way the believers practiced communal living. They were not monastics, for the apostles and brothers of Jesus were married (cf. 1Co 9:5), and so were many of the other believers (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira, 5:1–11). Nor did they form a closed society like the covenanters at Qumran. They lived in their own homes (cf. 2:46; 12:12) and had their own possessions, as any household would. But though these early Christians had personal possessions, they did not consider them to be private possessions (idion einai, “to be one’s own”) to be held exclusively for their own use and enjoyment. Rather, they shared what they had and so expressed their corporate life.
33 Because of its juxtaposition with v.32, we must understand the “great power” that accompanied the apostles’ witness “to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” as not being just a rhetorical or homiletical expression, or even miraculous power, but the power of a new life in the believing community—a new life that manifested itself in sharing possessions to meet the needs of others. It was this kind of power that Jesus had in mind when he said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (Jn 13:35 TNIV). In view of such a combination of social concern and proclamation of the word, it is no wonder that Luke concludes this verse by saying, “and much grace was upon them all.”
34–35 The insertion of the phrase “from time to time” in the NIV brings out the iterative force of the imperfect verbs in these two verses. The actions alluded to were extraordinary and voluntary acts of Christian concern done in response to special needs among the believers. They involved both sharing possessions and selling real estate. By separating these actions from those described in v.32 and by the way he treats them, Luke suggests that they were exceptional and not meant to be normative for the church. The church at Jerusalem, even in its earliest days, was neither a monastic nor semimonastic community. Nevertheless, such acts were highly regarded as magnanimous expressions of a common social concern, though sadly, as with any noble deed, they could be done either sincerely or hypocritically.
32 For πλῆθος (plēthos, “crowd, assembly, community,” GK 4436) used of a Jewish group of people, cf. 2:6; 19:9; 23:7; 25:24; for its general sense of “multitude,” cf. 14:1; 17:4.
The Western text (D, E, and as represented by Cyprian, Zeno, and Ambrose) add after μία (mia, “one”) καὶ οὐκ ἦν διάκρισις [or χωρισμός] ἐν αὐτοῖς οὐδεμία (kai ouk ēn diakrisis [or chōrismos] en autois oudemia, “and there was no quarrel [or division] among them at all”). This appears to be an addition made in the interest of emphasizing the unity of the early church.
33 The reading τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (tēs anastaseōs tou kyriou Iēsou, “the resurrection of the Lord Jesus”), as found in P8 (fourth century); uncials P and Ψ; some minuscules; and the Old Latin Gigas, Syriac Harclean, and Coptic Sahidic versions, is the simplest and so is usually judged by text critics to account best for the rise of the other variant readings. Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Bezae (D), and the Byzantine tradition reverse the phrase, perhaps to connect “the Lord Jesus” with “the apostles.” Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Alexandrinus (A) read ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου (Iēsou Christou tou kuriou, “Jesus Christ the Lord”).
34–35 Josephus (J.W. 2.122) says of the Essenes, “Riches they despise, and their community of goods [τὸ κοινωνικόν, to koinōnikon] is truly admirable. You will not find one among them distinguished by greater opulence than another. They have a law that new members on admission to the sect shall confiscate their property to the order, with the result that you will nowhere see either abject poverty or inordinate wealth; the individual’s possessions join the common stock and all, like brothers, enjoy a single patrimony.” And with this description Qumran’s Rule of the Community (1QS 1.11–13) seems to agree: “All who declare their willingness to serve God’s truth must bring all of their mind, all of their strength, and all of their wealth into the community of God, so that their minds may be purified by the truth of God’s precepts, their strength controlled by his perfect ways, and their wealth disposed of in accordance with his just design.”
Many have understood such statements as advocating a complete sharing of possessions and property. Yet the Rule of the Community (1QS 7.5–8) assumes some retention of personal property when it speaks of the members paying fines within the community and carrying on business dealings both with one another and with the community itself. Likewise, the Zadokite Fragments (or Damascus Covenant) suggests that only unjustified or ill-gotten possessions were forbidden and that only a portion of one’s income (i.e., at least two working days per month) was to be donated to the fund for the poor (CD 6:15; 8:5; 19:17). It seems, therefore, that we are dealing here with two matters: (1) idealized characterizations (as in the statements of Josephus and 1QS 1.11–13), with further explications serving to clarify more precisely the situation (as in 1QS 7.5–7 and CD 6:15; 8:5; 19:17—and as I suggest is the case in Ac 2:44–45 and 4:34–35); and (2) rules for monastic communities (as in 1QS) and rules seen to be more broadly applicable to life in both encampments and the cities (as in CD). The parallels between the communal sharing of the early Jerusalem Christians and that of the Qumran covenanters are, indeed, close and may legitimately be spelled out. One must also bear in mind, however, (1) the variations that appear between the idealized characterizations and the explanations of actual practice, and (2) the differences that inevitably occurred between the communal life of monastic communities and the sharing of those living in nonmonastic situations.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
COMMENTARY
36 Luke uses the generosity of Barnabas as “exhibit A” to illustrate the type of extraordinary social concern that was “from time to time” (v.34) expressed by believers at Jerusalem. Joseph was his Hebrew name used at home, in the synagogue, and among Jews generally. To this the apostles added the cognomen or descriptive nickname Barnabas, which means in Hebrew “Son of Encouragement,” in order, evidently, to distinguish him from others of the same name (cf. 1:23). His family came from Cyprus, and he evidently had ancestral property there. John Mark was his cousin (ho anepsios, GK 463; Col 4:10), and the home of Mark’s mother was in Jerusalem (cf. 12:12).
37 Barnabas is an important figure in Luke’s account of the church’s expansion from Jerusalem to Rome. He appears a number of times as a kind of hinge between the mission to the Jewish world and that to the Gentiles (cf. 9:27; 11:22–30; 13:1–14:28; 15:2–4, 12, 22, 36–41; see also 1Co 9:6). Here he is introduced as one who “sold a field” (hyparchontos autō agrou, lit., “the possession to him of a field”) and gave the money to the apostles for distribution among those in need. We are not told whether the property he sold was in Cyprus or Palestine. If his family was from Cyprus but had lived in Palestine, and if he continued to have connections with Cyprus while living in Palestine, he could have inherited or purchased property in Cyprus, Palestine, or both. Nor are we told how the biblical prohibition against Levites owning real estate applied in Barnabas’s case (cf. Nu 18:20; Dt 10:9), though such a regulation seems not always to have been observed (cf. Jer 32:7–44; Josephus, Life 76). What we are told is that Barnabas gave a practical demonstration of Christian social concern that was under no compulsion of either precedent or rule (cf. 5:4).
NOTES
36 Jews also had alternative Greek names, but evidently because he viewed his ministry as principally within a Jewish milieu, Luke does not give us Barnabas’s Greek name. Had he been a Roman citizen, he would also have had three Roman names, of which the third would probably have been identical with his Greek name.
37 Papyrus MSS P57 (fourth–fifth centuries) and P74 (seventh century); codices A (fifth century), B (fourth century), and D (fifth century); most minuscules (ninth century and following); and the TR read παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (para tous podas, “at the feet”), whereas codices א (fourth century) and E (sixth century) read πρὸς τοὺς πόδας (pros tous podas, “at the feet,” GK 4546). Since the former is the more urbane expression and the latter the less elegant, probably the text originally had the latter. This tendency to alter a less elegant expression to the more urbane appears also in 5:10, where πρός, pros (as in א A B D), appears in various other textual witnesses as παρά (para) or ἐπί (epi) or ὑπό (hypo).
OVERVIEW
The case of Ananias and Sapphira is opposite that of Barnabas, though it was meant to look the same. No doubt the story circulated within the church as a warning of the awfulness of deceit, for in times of great enthusiasm such a warning is especially necessary. And though Luke has taken evident pleasure in reporting the progress of the gospel and the vitality of faith during these early days of the church in Jerusalem, he does not omit this most distressing event. It is a situation that must have lain heavily on the hearts of the early Christians. It is also a message that must be constantly kept in mind by Christians today.
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
1–2 The details of the conspiracy are concisely stated. A certain man named Ananias (Heb. “God is gracious”) and his wife, Sapphira (Aram. “beautiful”), both of whom were evidently Christians, apparently wanted to enjoy the acclaim of the church, as Barnabas did, but without making a genuine sacrifice. So they sold some of their real estate (ktēma, GK 3228; NIV, “a piece of property”; cf. 2:45) and pretended to give the full price to the apostles for distribution to the needy, though they agreed to keep back part of the money for themselves. We wish we knew more about their purpose and their expectations so we could better understand what later took place. But not even the apostles knew all about these things, though Peter inferred the substance of what went on between them. Luke’s use of the verb nosphizō (“put aside for oneself,” “keep back,” “misappropriate,” “purloin,” GK 3802), which in the LXX heads the account in Joshua 7:1–26 of Achan’s misappropriation of part of what had been dedicated to God, suggests that Luke meant to draw a parallel between the sin of Achan, as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan, and the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, as the church began its mission—with both incidents coming under the immediate and drastic judgment of God and teaching a sobering lesson. And this is likely how the early church saw the incident too.
3–4 Peter did not view the action of Ananias and Sapphira as merely incidental. He spoke of it as inspired by Satan and as a lie to both the Holy Spirit and God. It was a case of deceit and was an affront not just on the community level but also and primarily before God. Deceit is spiritually disastrous—a sin, whatever its supposed justification, that sours every personal relationship. Where there is even the suspicion of misrepresentation and deception, trust is completely violated.
5 Psychological explanations for Ananias’s sudden death may attribute his fatal collapse to the shock and shame of being found out. The verb Luke uses for his death, however, is ekpsychō (“breathe one’s last,” “die,” GK 1775), which is the same word used in the LXX of Sisera’s death in Judges 4:21. It appears in the NT only in contexts where someone is struck down by divine judgment (cf. Ac 5:5, 10; 12:23). Psychological and physical factors may well have been secondary causes in Ananias’s death, but Luke’s emphasis is on the ultimate causation of God as the agent. It is in this light that he means his readers to understand his further comment: “And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.”
6 The expression “the young men” (hoi neōteroi, GK 3742), particularly in parallel construction with its synonym in v.10 (hoi neaniskoi, “the young men,” GK 3734), should be understood as simply denoting age and referring to certain younger men in the Christian community, not as designating professional buriers. The verb systellō (“cover,” “wrap up,” “take away,” remove,” GK 5366) was frequently used by ancient Greek physicians like Hippocrates, Galen, and Dioscorides to mean “to bandage a limb” or “compress a wound by bandaging,” though it was used more widely in the sense of “cover,” “wrap up,” “fold up,” and “take away, remove” (cf. BDAG, 978). Whether the young men covered Ananias with a shroud and carried him away or wrapped him up in some manner and then carried him away—or simply picked him up from the floor and took him off for burial—is impossible to say. It is understandable that burial in hot climates takes place soon after death. But just why Ananias was buried so quickly and why his wife was not told seems strange, though we are not told enough about the circumstances to offer any explanation.
7–10 “About three hours later” the tragic episode was repeated with Sapphira. Just as husband and wife were united in their conspiracy, so they were united in the judgment that came on them. “All this is handled,” as Haenchen, 239, says of Luke’s account, “without pity, for we are in the presence of the divine punishment which should be witnessed in fear and trembling, but not with Aristotelian fear and pity.”
11 It may seem redundant that Luke closes his account of Ananias’s and Sapphira’s act of deception with the statement, “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” But this is a vignette of warning. In concluding it Luke wants to lay stress on this note of reverent fear, as he did earlier in v.5 and as resonates implicitly throughout this sorry account.
This is the first time in Acts that the word “church” (ekklēsia, GK 1711) appears (setting aside its appearance at 2:47 in Codex Bezae), though it is the regular word for both the church universal and local congregations elsewhere in the book (cf. 7:38; 8:1; 9:31; 11:22; 13:1; 14:23; 15:22, 41; 16:5; 19:32, 40; 20:28) and throughout the NT epistles (note that ekklēsia occurs three times in the Gospels; cf. Mt 16:18; 18:17 [twice]).
NOTES
3 Codex Bezae (D) inserts πρός (pros, “to”) between the names Πέτρος (Petros) and ῾Ανανίας (Hananias), either accidentally (a partial dittography of Πέτρος) or deliberately.
“Satan” (Gr. ὁ Σατανᾶς, ho Satanas; Heb. ha śātān) was originally a common noun that meant “adversary” (cf. 1Ki 11:14; Ps 109:6), but it came to be a personal designation for the angel that accuses people before God (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7) and tempts them to evil (1Ch 21:1). In the first century, Satan was considered the chief of the evil demons (cf. Jub. 10:11; 23:29; 40:9; 50:5), who was also called Asmondeus (Tob 3:8, 17; b. Giṭ. 68b; b. Pesaḥ. 110a), Semjaza (1 En. 6:3, 7; 8:3; 10:11), Azazel (1 En. 8:1; 10:4; 86:1; 88:1), Mastema (Jub. 10:5–11; 17:16; 18:4, 12; 48:2), and Beliar or Belial (Jub. 1:20; throughout the NT).
“To fill the heart” is a Hebraism that means “to dare to do something” (cf. Est 7:5; Ecc 8:11).
3–4 The association of “the Holy Spirit” and “God” (see also “the Spirit of the Lord” in v.9) is suggestive of the plurality of the Godhead and later doctrinal elaborations on the personality of the Spirit.
5 Codex Bezae (D) inserts παραχρῆμα (parachrēma, “immediately,” GK 4202), in parallel with v.10, before πεσών (pesōn, “falling down,” GK 4406), evidently to heighten the dramatic effect.
REFLECTIONS
No account in Acts has provoked so much wrath and dismay from critics as this one. Commentators have complained about the impossibility of accepting the death of both a husband and his wife under such circumstances and have questioned Peter’s ethics in not giving them an opportunity to repent and in not telling Sapphira about her husband’s death. Even more difficult for many is the way the story portrays Peter, who appears to be without the compassion or restraint of his Lord. Jesus’ relations with Judas, whose sin was a thousand times more odious, were not on this level. Many, in fact, have found it repugnant to believe that any early ecclesiastical official would have shown such harshness over such a relatively “slight” offense and, furthermore, have doubted that the early church would have wanted to preserve such an account. Some, therefore, have taken this sorry episode to be a fictitious story, which might have arisen within a certain part of the early Christian community to explain why certain members of the community had died before the Parousia.
The Qumran community, however, realized the seriousness of deceit and in a situation somewhat similar to the one here ruled, “If there be found in the community a man who consciously lies in the matter of his wealth, he is to be regarded as outside the state of purity entailed by membership, and he is to be penalized one-fourth of his food ration” (1QS 6.24–25). Of course, the penalty for such deceit at Qumran was not nearly as severe as in Acts 5. But neither were the situations exactly alike.
Ananias and Sapphira were severely dealt with, it seems, (1) because of the voluntary nature of their act of pretended piety (cf. v.4) and (2) because the greater freedom permitted in the church at Jerusalem made individual Christians more responsible to be honest and more culpable when dishonest. In addition, the way Ananias and Sapphira attempted to reach their goals was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire Christian mission off its course. Like the act of Achan, this episode was pivotal in the life and mission of God’s people, for the whole enterprise of the church was threatened at its very start. And while we may be thankful that judgment on deceit in the church is not now so swift and drastic, this incident stands as an indelible warning regarding the heinousness in God’s sight of deception in spiritual and personal matters.
OVERVIEW
Having in his source materials both accounts of the apostles’ arraignments before the Sanhedrin, Luke now gives the second account. Whether he clearly grasped or fully appreciated the rationale in Jewish jurisprudence for two such appearances is debatable (see Overview at 4:1–31). Nevertheless, he takes the occasion in telling of the apostles’ second appearance before the council to emphasize the development of attitudes in these earliest days of the Christian mission at Jerusalem by highlighting principally (1) the deepening jealousy and antagonism of the Sadducees, (2) the continuing moderation of the Pharisees, and (3) the increasing joy and confidence of the Christians. In so doing, Luke continues the elaboration of his thesis paragraph that appeared in 2:42–47.
OVERVIEW
This paragraph, like 2:42–47 and 4:32–35, is a Lukan introduction to the material that follows. It includes some statements (principally vv.12b–14) that reach back to what has been narrated before, recalling the Christians’ practice of meeting in Solomon’s Colonnade, the reverential fear aroused by the awful end of Ananias and Sapphira, and the increasing number of people who believed. In the main, however, the paragraph introduces the story of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin by giving a reason for the Sadducees’ jealousy and for their second inquisition of the apostles, the reason being the continued success of the Christian mission at Jerusalem.
Source critics have been troubled by the facts that there is no proper connection between vv.14 and 15 and that v.15 links up quite nicely with v.12a, apart from the material of vv.12b–14. Some commentators, therefore, have taken vv.12b–14 as a self-contained unit stemming from an earlier source and vv.15–16 as an awkward editorial addition; others have taken vv.12a and 15–16 as representative of Luke’s source material and vv.12b–14 as an editorial intrusion. Luke, however, was probably faced in his source materials with the juxtaposition of the vignettes about the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira and the apostles’ second appearance before the Jewish Sanhedrin, and so felt the need to provide his readers with a summary paragraph as a transition from the one to the other.
We may fault Luke for crowding too much into that paragraph or for arranging it in a somewhat jumbled chronological sequence. But the course he plots in moving from reverential fear on the part of the church and the people (cf. 5:5, 11), to heightened jealousy on the part of the Sadducees (cf. 5:17–33), and then to increased rejoicing on the part of the apostles (cf. 5:41–42) is not difficult to follow. And his purpose in providing such an introductory summary paragraph—which parallels in both motive and pattern what he has done at 4:32–35—is understandable.
12The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.
COMMENTARY
12a The reason for the Sadducees’ jealousy and the apostles’ second appearance before the Jewish Sanhedrin is given quite concisely. In defiance of the council’s orders, the apostles continued to carry on their ministry among the people, with “many miraculous signs and wonders” being performed. As with his introductory résumé of 4:32–35, so here too Luke puts his thesis statement at the very beginning of his portrayal of events.
12b–14 Luke speaks of three groups of people and their response to both the Sanhedrin’s warning and the fear engendered by Ananias’s and Sapphira’s fate: (1) the Christians and their continued meeting together in Solomon’s Colonnade; (2) the unbelieving Jews (hoi loipoi, “the rest”) and their reluctance to associate too closely with the Christians; and (3) the responsive Jews (ho laos, “the people,” GK 3295) and their honoring the Christians—with many men and women from this latter group coming to believe in the Lord and being added to the number of Christian believers. Thematically, this résumé serves to support the thesis statement of v.12a; structurally, it relates to its paragraph much as 4:33, with its reference to the apostles’ continued preaching, relates to its own paragraph.
15–16 The material in these two verses is structurally like that of 4:34–35, for in both cases there is a logical and linguistic connection with each thesis statement (cf. the gar, “for,” in 4:34 and the hōste kai, “as a result,” in 5:15). In both instances special and extraordinary expressions of the respective thesis statements are detailed. As healing virtue had flowed from Jesus just by touching in faith the edge of his cloak (cf. Mk 5:25–34 par.), so Luke tells us of extraordinary situations where even Peter’s shadow was used by God to effect a cure (cf. 19:11–12). And whereas the healing of the crippled beggar had originally aroused the Sadducees’ antagonism, now, Luke tells us, such a miracle was being repeated numerous times in the apostles’ ministry, and crowds from the outlying districts around Jerusalem thronged the apostles. No wonder the Sadducees’ jealousy erupted anew!
NOTES
12 On the compound σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα (sēmeia kai terata, “signs and wonders,” GK 4956, 5469), see comments at 2:22. Evidently when Luke was controlled by his sources, he wrote τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα, terata kai sēmeia (cf. 2:19, 22, 43; 6:8; 7:36), but when he wrote more freely, he preferred the order σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, sēmeia kai terata (cf. 5:12; 14:3; 15:12).
The Western text (D, minuscule 42, and as represented by the Coptic Sahidic version) adds ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (en tō hierō, “in the temple,” GK 2639) after “to meet together” and before “in Solomon’s Colonnade.” Solomon’s Colonnade, however, was located outside the temple proper (see comments at 3:11).
13 Various other suggestions for understanding οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα κολλᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς (oudeis etolma kollasthai autois, “no one else dared join them” [NIV] or “none of the rest dared to associate with them” [NASB]) have been offered: (1) no one dared to join the believers on his or her own authority, i.e., apart from being received by the apostles and baptized; (2) no one dared to meddle with, i.e., “contend with” or “antagonize” the believers; and (3) no one dared to prevent the believers from meeting in Solomon’s Colonnade. Each of these other readings, however, is highly inferential, for the verb κολλάω (kollaō, GK 3140) is best translated “join, associate with on intimate terms,” or “come into close contact with” (cf. Lk 15:15, “hired himself out to”).
On ὁ λαός (ho laos, “the people”) in Luke’s writings, see the discussion at 2:47a.
OVERVIEW
Luke’s account of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin is divided into three sections, with a typically Lukan connective beginning each section: anastas (“rising up,” GK 482; untranslated in NIV) at v.17, which introduces the arrest and trial of the apostles (vv.17–33); anastas (“rising up”; NIV, “stood up”) at v.34, which introduces Gamaliel’s wise counsel of moderation (vv.34–40); and men oun (NASB, “so”; untranslated in NIV) at v.41, which begins the statements about the apostles’ rejoicing and continued ministry (vv.41–42). The NIV treats anastas at the beginning of v.17 and men oun at the beginning of v.41 as stylistic connectives and so does not translate them.
17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20“Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.”
21At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23“We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
25Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.
17–18 As in 4:1–31, Luke portrays the early opposition to Christianity as stemming principally from the Sadducees. The Pharisees were undoubtedly represented in the Sanhedrin (see comments on “the full assembly of the elders of Israel” at v.21), but their presence in these early days of the church’s existence—i.e., before the “apostasy” of Stephen and the Hellenists—is depicted as exerting a moderating influence on the antagonism of the Sadducees. Thus “the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party [hē ousa hairesis] of the Sadducees,” are presented as taking official action a second time against the apostles by arresting them and putting them “in the public jail” (en tērēsei dēmosia).
The noun hairesis (“party,” GK 146) is used variously in the NT of Sadducees (here), Pharisees (15:5; 26:5), Christians (24:5, 14; 28:22), divisions within the churches (1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20), and outright “heresies” (2Pe 2:1)—either with or without a pejorative nuance. The inclusion of the participle ousa (“being”) seems to be a Lukan mannerism drawn ultimately from Grecian jurisprudence and usually adds little to the sense (cf. 13:1; 14:13; 28:17). Here, however, it gives the sentence a somewhat official and menacing sound. The word dēmosia (GK 1323) used as an adverb carries the meaning of “publicly” (cf. 16:37; 18:28; 20:20; 2 Macc 6:10; 3 Macc 2:27; 4:7; Josephus, J.W. 2.455), and therefore as an adjective with tērēsis (“prison,” GK 5499) means “the public prison” or “public jail.” Dēmosion as a substantive, taking the form of the Hebrew dîmôs, passed into the language of the rabbis as the term for “a common jail” (cf. Str-B, 2.635).
19–21a In speaking of the “door-miracles” in the NT, Joachim Jeremias has noted the widespread popularity within the ancient world of legends regarding prison doors that open of themselves under divine instigation. He concludes with the following statement: “The threefold repetition of the motif of the miraculous opening of prison doors in Acts, its distribution between the apostles in Acts 5:19, Peter in 12:6–11, and Paul in 16:26f., and the agreement with ancient parallels in many details, e.g., liberation by night, the role of the guards, the falling off of chains, the bursting open of the doors, the shining of bright light, earthquake, all suggest that in form at least Luke is following an established topos” (TDNT 3:176). Indeed, the form of such stories may be judged to have influenced Luke, at least to some extent, in the composition of his narrative here, for literary conventions and forms, as well as ideas, were certainly “in the air.” Yet as F. F. Bruce, 120 n., observed, “In this as in all form-critical studies it must be remembered that the material is more important than the form; meat-pies and mud-pies may be made in pie-dishes of identical shape, but the identity of shape is the least important consideration in comparing the two kinds of pies.”
19 The “angel of the Lord” (angelos kyriou, GK 34, 3261) is the LXX term for the Hebrew “angel of Yahweh” (mal ʾāk YHWH), which denotes God himself in his dealings with people (e.g., Ex 3:2, 4, 7). While the Greek angelos, like the Hebrew mal ʾāk, may simply mean “messenger,” here it denotes the presence or agency of God himself (cf. 8:26; 12:7, 23 [probably also simply angelos in 7:30, 35, 38; 12:11; 27:23]; Mt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 28:2; Lk 1:11; 2:9).
20 By divine intervention, the apostles were released from the public jail and told, “Go, stand in the temple courts … and tell the people the full message of this new life.” The use of the aorist passive participle stathentes (“stand” or, more appropriately, “hold your ground, stand firm,” GK 2705) with the present imperative poreuesthe (“go,” GK 4513) suggests that dogged steadfastness on the part of the apostles was required in the face of the Sadducees’ opposition.
The apostles’ message was to continue to be directed to those who would receive it within Israel (ho laos, “the people”) and to be proclaimed fully (panta ta rhēmata, lit., “all the words”), in spite of the Sanhedrin’s attempt to silence it. The focus is on “this new life,” with “life” (zōē, GK 2437) and “salvation” (sōtēria, GK 5401) understood in the NT as being synonymous, since both are Greek translations of the Hebrew word “life” (ḥayyâ, GK 2652). And since the apostles had been miraculously released and divinely commissioned, that is exactly what they began to do (v.21a).
21b–27 Having confined (as they thought) the apostles in the public jail for the night, the next morning “the high priest and his associates” again convened the Sanhedrin in order to make a judgment and take some action about the disturbances the Christians had caused. Luke adds, “the full assembly of the elders of Israel” (pasan tēn gerousian tōn huiōn Israēl, lit., “all the senate of the sons of Israel”), probably to make clear that the Pharisees were well represented in the council at this time. They may not have been present at the first trial, but they certainly became vocal through Gamaliel at this second trial (cf. vv.34–40).
The Sanhedrin sent to the jail for their prisoners but did not find them. “The captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled” (v.24), perhaps suspecting that the escape was aided in some way by members of the temple guard. But when they heard that the apostles were teaching the people in the temple courts (v.25), “the captain” took command of his temple police and brought the apostles in before the council to be interrogated (v.26a). Luke states that no violence occurred in their arrest because the captain and his guard feared the reaction of the people (v.26b). This says something about the response of the early Christians to Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence and his example of nonretaliation when he was arrested (cf. Mk 14:43–50 par.), for they might have begun a riot and thus extricated themselves. It also continues the theme of “the favor of all the people” in 2:42–47.
28 The high priest, as president of the Sanhedrin, began the interrogation by reminding the apostles of the council’s order for them to be silent, which order had obviously not been complied with. It is uncertain whether Luke had in mind Annas or Caiaphas as leading the interrogation. The latter was officially the high priest at the time. The former, however, is assumed in the NT to be the real power behind the throne and continues to be called the high priest (cf. Lk 3:2; Jn 18:13–24). Formally, the high priest’s interrogation contains no question at all but only points up the apostles’ refusal to obey the Sanhedrin’s order (i.e., a charge of “contempt of court”). He also objects to their insistence on blaming the council for Jesus’ death (cf. 4:10, “whom you crucified”).
For the Sadducean leadership of the council, the uncontested charge of contempt of court was sufficient legal warrant for taking action against the apostles. The Sadducees only wanted to preserve their own vested authority and put an end to any disturbance among the people. They evidently had no interest in determining the truth or falsity of the Christians’ claims. Their hardened attitude is manifest in their refusal to mention the name of Jesus (cf. epi tō onomati toutō, “in this name [GK 4047],” contra epi tō onomati tou Iēsou, “in the name of Jesus,” 4:18) and their spitting out the epithet “this man” (tou anthrōpou toutou; GK 476) when they had to refer to him.
29 By saying “Peter and the other apostles replied,” Luke suggests that Peter was the spokesman for the group of apostles on trial, with the others indicating their agreement. Their response is hardly a reasoned defense, rather, simply a reaffirmation of their position. As at the first trial (4:19), here they voice even more succinctly the noble principle, “We must obey God rather than men.”
30 As at the first trial, the focus is on Jesus. “By hanging him on a tree” (kremasantes epi xylou) is a locution for crucifixion and stems from Deuteronomy 21:22–23. While the noun xylou (GK 3833) was used in antiquity and the LXX variously for “a tree” or “wood” of any kind, “a pole,” and various objects made of wood, including “a gallows,” it is also used in the NT for the cross of Jesus (cf. 10:39; 13:29; Gal 3:13 [quoting Dt 21:23]; 1Pe 2:24).
31 “Prince” and “Savior” are christological ascriptions rooted in the confessions of the early church and particularly associated with the NT themes of exaltation and lordship.
33 As far as the Sadducees were concerned, the charge of contempt of court was not only uncontested but repeated. On hearing the apostles reaffirm what to them could only be considered intolerable obstinacy, the Sadducees were furious and wanted to destroy them. While the Sanhedrin did not have authority under Roman jurisdiction to inflict capital punishment, undoubtedly they would have found some pretext for handing these men over to the Romans for such action—as they did with Jesus himself—had it not been for the intervention of the Pharisees, as represented particularly by Gamaliel (v.34).
NOTES
17 On the Sadducees, see comments at 4:1.
18 Codex Bezae (D) adds at the end of the verse καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἷς ἕκαστος εἰς τὰ ἴδια (kai eporeuthē heis hekastos eis ta idia, “and each one went to his own home”), which is an extraneous circumstantial detail that parallels John 7:53 and the addition by many scribes to Acts 14:18.
21 The verb ἐδίδασκον (edidaskon, GK 1438) should probably be understood as an inceptive imperfect and so be translated, “they began to teach” (so NIV, NASB).
The epexegetical phrase “the full assembly of the elders of Israel” (pasan tēn gerousian tōn huiōn Israēl, lit., “all the senate of the sons of Israel”) echoes the LXX wording of Exodus 12:21. On the Sanhedrin, its constitution, and its other names, see comments and note at 4:5.
24–27 On “the captain of the temple guard” (ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ho stratēgos tou hierou) and his temple police force, see comments at 4:1.
26 Codex Bezae (D) strangely (perhaps accidentally) omits the negative οὐ (ou, “not”) in the phrase οὐ μετὰ βίας (ou meta bias, “not with force”).
27 On Annas and Caiaphas as high priest, see comments at 4:6.
28 Several codices (D E P) and a number of minuscules include the negative οὐ (ou, “not”) before παραγγελίᾳ (parangelia, “strict orders,” GK 4132), whereas Bodmer P74 and several codices (א A B) omit it. Its inclusion may have been occasioned by the influence of the warning in 4:17 and the verb ἐπηρώτησεν (epērōtēsen, “he questioned,” GK 2089) in 5:27; its omission may be due to a copyist’s desire to turn the high priest’s question into a rebuke.
Perhaps the way in which Jesus is referred to by the high priest as “this man” is an example of the general reluctance of Judaism to pronounce the name of Jesus, as seen particularly in the rabbinic writings (cf. Jacob Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ [London: SPCK, 1949], 111). Codex Bezae (D) somewhat heightens the caustic nature of the high priest’s reference to Jesus by substituting the demonstrative pronoun ἐκείνος (ekeinos, “that”) for the demonstrative pronoun τούτος (toutos, “this”).
29 Codex Bezae (D) enhances the role of Peter by omitting “and the apostles answered” and altering εἶπαν (eipan, “they said”) to εἶπεν (eipen, “he said,” GK 3306).
31 On the christological titles ἀρχηγός (archēgos, “Prince,” GK 795) and σωτήρ (sōtēr, “Savior,” GK 5400), see my Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 53–58, 99–103, 141–44.
OVERVIEW
The portrayal of Gamaliel’s wise counsel in vv.34–40 is, it seems, the high point of Luke’s account of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin and probably the main reason why he included the whole vignette. Structurally, the aorist participle anastas (“rising up”) at v.17, used as a connective and introducing the heightened antagonism of the Sadducees to the early Christians in vv.17–33, is balanced by the same connective, anastas, at v.34 to introduce the moderation of the Pharisees depicted in vv.34–40 (see Overview, 5:17–33). Apparently Luke’s purpose is to contrast the developed antagonism of the Sadducees with the moderation of Gamaliel, who spoke as a significant representative of the Pharisees.
34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
34 The first-century Pharisee Gamaliel I, who was either the son or grandson of the famous Hillel, was himself so highly esteemed among his people that the Mishnah says of him, “Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died there has been no more reverence for the law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time” (m. Soṭah 9:15). Here in Acts he is portrayed as having taken charge at a certain point in the council meeting and as having gained the acquiescence of those present, not because of any vested authority, but through personal forcefulness and respect for what he represented.
For more on the Pharisees, see Reflections, p. 799.
35 Gamaliel addresses the council members with the traditional designation “men of Israel” (cf. 2:22).
36–37 The most notorious historical blunder in Acts, as many have seen it, is Gamaliel’s reference in his speech to the Jewish revolutionaries Theudas and Judas the Galilean. The historical problems are two: (1) the conflict with Josephus as to the chronological order of these rebellions, for Josephus places that of Judas at about AD 6 (Ant. 18.4–10) and that of Theudas at about AD 44 (Ant. 20.97–98); and, more seriously, (2) that Gamaliel in about AD 34 refers to an uprising of Theudas, which did not, in fact, occur until a decade or so later. Nineteenth-century criticism explained these problems as resulting from Luke’s errant dependence on Josephus, arguing that Luke (1) had confused Josephus’s later reminiscence (Ant. 20.102) of Judas’s revolt with Judas’s earlier actual revolt and (2) had forgotten some sixty years or more after the event (if indeed he had ever known) that Gamaliel’s speech preceded Theudas’s rebellion by a decade or so. And many contemporary scholars continue to highlight this problem as being disastrous for any confidence in Luke’s historical and chronological accuracy. Haenchen, 257, for example, insists “that Luke should have been capable of transposing Theudas’s march to the Jordan—which [on Haenchen’s dating of Acts] took place perhaps forty years before the composition of Acts—to the time preceding the census of Quirinius, some eighty years distant from Acts, proves that the traditions reaching him had left him in utter confusion where chronology was concerned.”
The arguments for Luke’s dependence on Josephus have been fairly well demolished by a number of comparative studies of the two writers. Emil Schürer’s dictum still holds true today: “Either Luke had not read Josephus, or he had forgotten all about what he had read” (“Lucas und Josephus,” ZWT 19 [1876]: 582–83). And despite the caustic comment about “special pleading” usually leveled against the proposal, it remains true that (1) the Theudas whom Gamaliel cites in Acts 5:36 may have been one of the many insurgent leaders who arose in Palestine at the time of Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC, and not the Theudas who led the Jewish uprising of AD 44; and (2) Gamaliel’s examples of Jewish insurrectionists have in mind a Theudas of about 4 BC and Judas the Galilean of AD 6, whereas Josephus focused on the Judas of AD 6 and another Theudas of AD 44. Our problem with these verses, therefore, may result as much from our own ignorance of the situation as from what we believe we know based on Josephus.
38–39 It has often been claimed that the moderation of Gamaliel portrayed here is “an historical mistake,” for such words are not in character with what we know of Pharisaism (J. Weiss, 1.185). Yet in characterizing the respective attitudes of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Josephus (J.W. 2.166) notes, “The Pharisees are affectionate to each other and cultivate harmonious relations with the community. The Sadducees, on the contrary, are, even among themselves, rather boorish in their behavior, and in their relations with their compatriots are as rude as to aliens.” And later he says, “the Pharisees are naturally lenient in the matter of punishments” (Ant. 13.294). Likewise, Rabbi Johanan the sandal maker, a second-century disciple of Rabbi Akiba, taught that “any assembling together that is for the sake of heaven shall in the end be established, but any that is not for the sake of heaven shall not in the end be established” (m. ʾAbot 4:11)—an instruction expressing a policy of “wait and see the end result of a matter” that exactly parallels the attitude of Gamaliel as Luke reports it here.
Admittedly, both Josephus and Johanan had their own prejudices and purposes in saying what they did (which is true of every writer and teacher, including commentators on Acts). But there are good reasons to believe that such sentiments of tolerance and moderation, with history being viewed as the final judge of whether something is of God, characterized the better Pharisees of the day. So Gamaliel’s response to the proclamation and activity of the apostles should not be seen as being out of line for better Hillelian Pharisees.
One major problem with accepting Luke’s portrayal of Gamaliel’s wise words of moderation is that later in Acts he speaks of Saul of Tarsus, who trained under Gamaliel I (cf. 22:3), as taking a very different attitude toward early believers in Jesus—joining with the Sadducees and obtaining from the high priest authorization to track them down and imprison them (cf. 8:1, 3; 9:1–2). But between Gamaliel’s advice in Acts 5 and Saul’s action in Acts 8 and 9 there arose from the depths of Christian conviction what the Pharisees as well as the Sadducees could only have considered to be a threat of Jewish apostasy. Before Gamaliel’s counsel of moderation, Luke tells us that the central issues of the church’s proclamation had been the messiahship, lordship, and saviorhood of Jesus of Nazareth, with particular emphasis on his heaven-ordained death, his victorious resurrection, and his present status as exalted Redeemer. “The stream of thought,” as William Manson (Jesus the Messiah [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943], 52) observed in characterizing the church’s early functional theology, “flowed in an intense but narrow channel, carrying in its flood much that for the time remained in solution in the subconscious rather than in the conscious region of the Christian mentality.” To the Sadducees, who instigated the early suppressions, such teaching not only upset orderly rule but, more importantly, impinged on their own vested authority. To the more noble of the Pharisees, however, the Jerusalem Christians were yet within the scope of Judaism and not to be treated as heretics.
The divine claims for Jesus as yet lay in the subconsciousness of the church, and those who were his followers showed no tendency to relax their observance of the Mosaic law because of their new beliefs. Other sects were tolerated within Judaism, and those whom the Pharisees considered to be deluded in their messianic commitment could be countenanced as well. As Arthur Nock (St. Paul [New York: Harper, 1938], 35–36) once said, “The Pharisees might wish all men to be even as they were; but that result could be attained only by persuasion.”
Between Gamaliel’s advice and Saul’s action, however, there arose within Christian preaching something that could only be viewed by the Jewish leaders as a real threat of Jewish apostasy. In Acts 6–7 Stephen is portrayed as beginning to apply the doctrines of Jesus’ messiahship and lordship to traditional Jewish views regarding the land, the Law, and the temple. Moreover, he is seen as beginning to reach conclusions that related to the primacy of Jesus’ messiahship and lordship and the secondary nature of Jewish views about the land, the Law, and the temple. How Stephen got involved in such discussions and how he developed his argument will be dealt with in my comments on Acts 6–7. Suffice it here to note that this was a dangerous path for Stephen to tread, particularly in Jerusalem—a path that even the apostles seemed unwilling to take at that time.
Indeed, Stephen’s message was Jewish apostasy! Had Rabbi Gamaliel the Elder faced this feature of Christian proclamation in the second Sanhedrin trial of the apostles, his attitude might well have been different. For with the whole basis of Judaism under attack in Stephen’s preaching, as the Pharisees would have viewed it, Saul’s persecution of believers in Jesus could have been later undertaken with the full approval of his teacher Gamaliel. As yet, however, that was not the situation. So Gamaliel here urges tolerance and moderation.
40 Gamaliel’s wise counsel prevailed to some extent among his Sanhedrin colleagues and held back the worst of Sadducean intentions, though it did not entirely divert their wrath. Thus the apostles were flogged (probably with the severe beating of thirty-nine stripes that is detailed in m. Mak. 3:10–15a), warned that the ban against teaching in the name of Jesus was still in effect, and then released.
NOTES
34 Codices א A B, together with the Latin Vulgate and Coptic Bohairic versions, have τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (tous anthrōpous, “the men”), whereas codices D E H P, together with the Syriac Peshitta and Coptic Sahidic versions and most minuscules, read τοὺς ἀποστόλους (tous apostolous, “the apostles”). The expression “the men” was evidently considered by many scribes to be too common for the apostles and too undignified for Luke’s narrative, though it appears later in Gamaliel’s speech at vv.35 and 38.
On the Pharisees, see L. Finkelstein, “The Pharisees: Their Origin and Their Philosophy,” HTR 22 (1929): 185–261; Finkelstein, The Pharisees (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938). For the view that the name “Pharisees” meant “interpreters” (from the idea of “dividing” in the Aramaic verb), see W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jews and Judaism During the Greek Period (London: SPCK, 1941), 245ff.; that it originally meant “Persianizers” because of their eschatology and angelology, see T. W. Manson, “Sadducee and Pharisee—the Origin and Significance of the Names,” BJRL 22 (1938): 153–59.
For the view that Hillel was the father of Gamaliel I, see H. L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1931), 109. Probably, however, Hillel as Gamaliel’s grandfather is the more supportable position; cf. W. Bacher, “Gamaliel I,” in Jewish Encyclopedia (N.Y.: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906), 5.558–59. The title “Rabban” (lit., “our teacher”) was an honorific one given to several teachers of the school of Hillel, a title that served to mark them off as being more significant than those designated simply “Rabbi” (lit., “my teacher”).
35 Codex Bezae (D) and the Coptic Sahidic version replace αὐτούς (autous, “them”) by τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τοὺς συνέδριους (tous archontas kai tous synedrious, “the rulers and members of the council”), probably because “them” was thought ambiguous and might be taken by a careless reader to refer to “the men” (i.e., “the apostles,” as D E H P et al. spell it out) of v.34.
36 The Western text (D, E, minuscule 614, recensions of the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions, and such church fathers as Origen, Jerome, and Cyril) variously add μέγαν (megan, “great”) either before or after the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν (heauton, “himself”), thereby saying explicitly that Theudas claimed to be someone great (cf. Simon’s boast in 8:9).
Instead of the simple ἀνῃρέθη (anērethē, “he was killed,” GK 359), the Greek text of Codex Bezae (D)—but not the corresponding Latin text of Bezae or recensions of the Old Latin—has διελύθη αὐτὸς δι’ αὑτοῦ (dielythē autos di’ hautou, “he was destroyed by himself”). Metzger, 292, aptly notes in treating this “curious” statement, “Bezae’s account of Theudas’s suicide is contrary to that of Josephus, who expressly says that Theudas, having been captured alive, was beheaded (Ant., XX.v.1)—or is the disagreement between the two accounts an added argument supporting the theory that Josephus and Acts refer to two different persons with the same name?”
38–39 On the piety of Hebraic Judaism, see my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 65–85. Possibly significant as well for an understanding of Gamaliel’s moderate stance is the remembrance in b. Sanh. 98b that “Hillel … maintained that there will be no Messiah for Israel, since they have already enjoyed him during the reign of Hezekiah,” coupled with the rejoinder in b. Sanh. 99a: “May God forgive him [i.e., Hillel, for so saying].” Joseph Klausner (The Messianic Idea in Israel [London: Allen & Unwin, 1956], 404) believes this remembrance and its rejoinder to refer to someone other than Hillel the Elder, but Sigmund Mowinckel (He That Cometh [Oxford: Blackwell, 1956], 284 n. 6) insists that this is a reference to the Hillel of Herod the Great’s day, the ancestor of Gamaliel. If this is so, then there was in Gamaliel’s own family a tragedy of mistaken identity such as would encourage Gamaliel to adopt a policy of moderation toward those who might, in his opinion, have had similarly mistaken views.
REFLECTIONS
The Pharisees represented the continuation of the ancient Hasidim, that group of “pious ones” in Israel who during the Seleucid oppressions joined the Hasmoneans (i.e., the Maccabees) in the struggle for religious freedom but later opposed the Maccabean rulers’ political and territorial claims. They came from diverse family, occupational, and economic backgrounds and gave themselves to (1) the study of the Law (Torah) in both its written and oral forms; (2) expounding the Law in terms of its contemporary relevance; and (3) preparing the people for the coming of the messianic age by means of education in Scripture and the oral tradition. The name “Pharisee” probably comes from the Aramaic verb meaning “to separate” (peras, GK 10592), which the Pharisees themselves evidently understood in its plural participial form to mean “the separated ones” in the sense of “holy ones dedicated entirely to God.” In the period before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 they were in the minority in the Sanhedrin. But their support by the people was so great that all matters of life and ceremony were guided by their interpretations (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.15), and Sadducean magistrates had to profess adherence to their principles in order to hold the formal allegiance of the populace (ibid., 18.17).
Theologically, the Pharisees looked for a messianic age and a personal Messiah. They also believed in the resurrection of the dead, though they understood such a doctrine to mean either the immortality of the soul or the reanimation and resuscitation of the body. Furthermore, they accepted the presence and activity of angels and demons, held in balance the tenets of God’s eternal decrees and man’s freedom of will, and tried to live lives of simple piety apart from needless wealth and luxury (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.162–63; Ant. 13.171–73; 18.11–15).
OVERVIEW
Luke ends his account of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin with a brief summary that speaks of their rejoicing and continued ministry. It is a statement that has nuances of defiance, confidence, and victory. In many ways it gathers together all that Luke has set forth from 2:42 on.
Dibelius, 124, prefers to think of these chapters as considerably exaggerated throughout and assumes the situation to have been more like the following:
A band of people had been gathered together in a common belief in Jesus Christ and in the expectation of his coming again, and were leading a quiet, and in the Jewish sense, “pious” existence in Jerusalem. It was a modest existence, and nothing but the victorious conviction of the believers betrayed the fact that from this company a movement would go out which was to change the world, that this community was to become the centre of the Church.
Haenchen, 258, agrees, insisting that “in the quiet life of the primitive community there were no mass assemblies such as Luke places at the outset of the Christian mission, therefore no conflicts with the Sadducees arising from them”—and furthermore, only with the rise of the Hellenists in the church sometime around AD 44 was “this secluded situation, in which the winning of souls for the Lord went on in the quiet personal encounter of man with man” brought to an end.
Ultimately, of course, we are forced to take sides—either with (1) Luke and his claim to have accurate source material that stems from reliable eyewitnesses, or (2) Dibelius and Haenchen and their claims to “expert opinion.” The latter would have us believe that it boils down to a choice between tradition and scholarship. In actual fact, however, it is a choice between two quite divergent historical traditions and two quite different philosophical perspectives, each of which has become “orthodox” in its own circle, and two fairly different ways of doing traditio-historical criticism. While Luke’s material may, indeed, be selective, styled, fragmentary, and incomplete, it is his understanding of events that leads us much further along the path of truth than the views of Dibelius or Haenchen, despite their many acknowledged excellencies of insight and skill in dealing with various details.
41The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.
41 Luke connects his summary statement with his narrative by the use of the particle men oun (“so,” “then”), which is one of his favorite connectives. He stresses the fact that just as the apostles performed miracles through the power of the name of Jesus (cf. 3:6) and proclaimed that name before the people and the council (cf. 3:16; 4:10, 12), so they rejoiced when “counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”
42 Furthermore, Luke tells us that “they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.” In this somewhat formal statement, which comes close to concluding our author’s whole first panel of material, there is both a correlation with the thesis paragraph of 2:42–47—explicitly in the phrases “in the temple courts and from house to house” (cf. 2:46), though also inferentially in the note of continuance that is sounded—and an anticipation of the final words of Luke’s sixth panel at the very end of Acts: “boldly and without hindrance” (28:31).
NOTES
41 On the connective μὲν οὖν (men oun, “so,” “then”) and its appearance elsewhere in Acts, see comments at 1:6.
The textual tradition indicates that scribes often sought to make explicit the referent of τοῦ ὀνόματος (tou onomatos, “the name”) by adding αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”), ᾿Ιησοῦ (Iēsou, “of Jesus”), τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (tou kyriou Iēsou, “of the Lord Jesus”), or τοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou Christou, “of the Christ”).
Being “counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name” was evidently a major theme in early Christian thought (cf. 1Pe 2:21; 4:12–19).
OVERVIEW
The source or sources at Luke’s disposal for his first panel of material on the earliest days of the church in Jerusalem seem to have been fairly well intact for chs. 2–5. Probably Luke added 2:42–47, which serves as the thesis paragraph for the whole panel, and also inserted the two summary paragraphs (4:32–35; 5:12–16) that provide the settings for their corresponding vignettes. Likewise, Luke’s literary touch is apparent everywhere in the style and form of his presentation. In the main, it appears he had his sources fairly well in hand for most of this part of his narrative. Furthermore, his source material seems to have contained its own conclusion, which was probably very similar to what we have at 5:41–42.
But in moving on, Luke seems to have been faced with at least two procedural problems. In the first place, his second panel, that of 6:8–9:31, focuses on three individuals—Stephen, Philip, and Saul of Tarsus—whose ministries were essential for his developmental thesis but who have not as yet been mentioned. Lest they be thought of as isolated figures in the development of the early church, Luke must relate them to what has gone on before. Furthermore, since these three men were in some way related to the Hellenists (though, of course, Saul of Tarsus was not himself a Hellenist; cf. Php 3:5b), and since thus far in the narrative there is, aside from 2:5–12, nothing said regarding these Hellenistic Christians, Luke found it necessary to tell his readers something about this element in the church.
Luke might have started his second panel with a discussion of Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem, for that would have provided an appropriate thematic introduction for the material of that panel. To have done so, however, would have separated them from their roots in the early church and damaged his theme of continuity amid diversity. Instead, he chose to include the portrayal of the Hellenists in the Jerusalem congregation in his first panel and before the summary statement (6:7) that concludes that panel, even though the Jerusalem church itself, for reasons that will be recounted as we proceed, might not have provided him with source material on the Hellenists and he had to ferret it out for himself.
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
COMMENTARY
1 This verse is one of the most important verses in Acts. It is, in fact, also one of the most complicated. What one concludes regarding the identity of the Hellēnistai (GK 1821; lit., “Hellenists”; NIV, “Grecian Jews”; NASB, “Hellenistic Jews”), their relation to the Hebraioi (GK 1578; lit., “Hebraists”; NIV, “Hebraic Jews”; NASB, “native Hebrews”), and their circumstances within the church largely affects how one understands the material in Luke’s second panel of material in 6:8–9:31 and the whole course of events within the Jerusalem church. It is important, therefore, to understand as precisely as possible what Luke says and implies in describing this group within the early church—a group he introduces by the phrases “in those days” and “when the number of disciples was increasing.”
Most commentators from John Chrysostom (AD 345–407) to the present have identified the Hellēnistai by their language and their geographical origin, i.e., as Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora who settled in Jerusalem among the native-born and Aramaic-speaking populace (e.g., Beginnings of Christianity [ed. Foakes–Jackson and Lake], 5.59–74). But that such a definition lacks sufficient precision to be useful is pointed up by the fact that Paul classed himself among the Hebraioi (cf. 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5), though he was also fluent in Greek and came from a city of the Diaspora. A few interpreters have understood Hellēnistai to mean “Jewish proselytes” (so E. C. Blackman, “The Hellenists of Acts vi.1,” ExpTim 48 [1937]: 524–25), though the fact that only one of the seven men in v.5 is called a proselyte seems fatal to such a view (assuming that the seven chosen to supervise the daily distribution of food are identified with the Hellenists generally). A few others have argued that Hellēnistēs means no more than Hellēn (“Greek”) because of its derivation from the verb hellēnizein, which means “to live as a Greek” rather than just “to speak Greek,” and have therefore taken it to refer simply to “Gentiles” (so Henry Cadbury, in Beginnings of Christianity, 3.106). But it is difficult to visualize Gentile believers, apart from those who were first Jewish proselytes, as accepted members within the Jerusalem church at any time during the first century, much less at the early date that Acts 6 requires. The case of Cornelius is presented in 10:1–11:18 as being quite exceptional, and this prohibits any easy assumption that such instances were common at an earlier time. Moreover, there is no indication that Cornelius actually joined the body of Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, even though they accepted the fact of his conversion.
Some have proposed that the “Hellenists” of Acts 6 were Jews related in some manner to the Essene movement in Palestine (cf. Oscar Cullmann, “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl [London: SCM, 1957], 18–32). In his book The Johannine Circle (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), Cullmann argued that it was just such a group that formed the “Johannine circle” that he saw as being responsible for both the Johannine writings and the Letter to the Hebrews. In St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church, Marcel Simon spoke repeatedly of the Hellenists as a radical reforming “gentilistic” party within Essene sectarianism, while Jean Daniélou (The Theology of Jewish Christianity [Chicago: Regnery, 1964], 72) raised the possibility that they were a Samaritan branch of Essenism.
To identify the Hellenists with the Essenes is to presuppose a picture of Essene theology that goes much beyond the available evidence. It is difficult to see how Essene obsessions with ritual purity, strict observance of the law, and the eternal significance of the temple cultus—even though in opposition to the Jerusalem priesthood because of its secularization and impurity—can be correlated with what Acts 6 says about the Hellenists or with Stephen’s message in Acts 7. And the anti-Samaritanism of the Qumran community, which comes to the fore in a number of unfavorable allusions in the Dead Sea pesher commentaries to “the men of Ephraim and Manasseh” (cf., e.g., 4QpPs37 on Ps 37:14; 4QpNa on Na 2:13; 3:1, 6), is hard to reconcile with the proclamation of the gospel in Samaria by those who were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria because of the persecution that began with Stephen’s martyrdom. If the Essenes are to be brought into the discussion of Acts 6 at all, it is more likely (as I’ll suggest later) that they are to be identified in some way with the “large number of priests” in 6:7 who “became obedient to the faith.”
Nor is it likely that the Hellenists are to be identified with the Samaritans, as Abram Spiro argued on the basis of the linguistic and conceptual parallels he saw between Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 on the one hand, and readings in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Samaritan views of history on the other (cf. “Appendix V,” in Munck, 285–300). Variants of the Hebrew biblical text, as the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed, were more widespread than previously appreciated, and the parallels between Stephen and the Samaritans are more analogical than strictly genealogical. Furthermore, since Samaritan theology was so thoroughly dominated by sacerdotal interests, it is hard to believe that anyone brought up with such an orientation could have given the kind of prophetic interpretation of the OT as expressed in Stephen’s discourse.
It seems quite inconceivable that Luke would have neglected to mention in his Acts the Samaritan connections of the Hellenists or of Stephen or Philip if such had been the case. He was not hesitant to speak approvingly of certain Samaritans in his gospel (cf. Lk 10:33; 17:16), and in his account of the advance of the gospel into Samaria (Ac 8:4–25) it would have been to his advantage to speak of the connection of the Samaritans with these Hellenists. And if all this does not carry conviction, it seems even more inconceivable that Luke would have a Samaritan addressing the Jewish Sanhedrin as “brothers and fathers” (22:1).
C. F. D. Moule’s suggestion (“Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?” ExpTim 70 [1959]: 100)—that the Hellēnistai of Acts 6 were “simply Jews (whether by birth or as proselytes) who spoke only Greek and no Semitic language, in contrast to Hebraioi, which would then mean the Jews who spoke a Semitic language in addition, of course, to Greek”—has much to commend it and seems to be an advance in the explicit meaning of the term. It has a number of advantages: (1) it hurdles the difficulty as to how Paul could call himself a Hebraic Jew when he was from the Diaspora; (2) it provides an explanation as to why Hellenistic synagogues were required in Jerusalem; and (3) it offers an insight into the problem of why two of the seven men chosen in 6:5 (i.e., Stephen and Philip) appear almost immediately thereafter as evangelists within their own circle when they had actually been appointed to supervise more mundane concerns. Yet as Joseph Fitzmyer (“Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Keck and Martyn, 238) has aptly noted, “It should also be recalled that such a linguistic difference would also bring with it a difference in outlook and attitude”—or at least would give rise within more Hebraic circles to suspicions and accusations of such a difference.
As reflected in the Talmud, Pharisaism made little secret of its contempt for “Grecian Jews” or “Hellenists.” Unlike those from Syria or Babylonia, which were areas often considered extensions of the Holy Land, Jews from other Diaspora lands were frequently categorized by native-born and (assumedly) more scrupulous Jews of Jerusalem as second-class Israelites (cf. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], 1:7–9). And judging by the claim of some in the Corinthian church that they were true Hebraic Jews as opposed to being Hellenists (cf. 2Co 11:22a), and by the need for Paul to defend his Hebraic heritage so stoutly and repeatedly (cf. 22:3; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5, probably in view of his having been born in Tarsus), it appears that this attitude of Hebraic Jewish superiority was rather widespread.
Probably, then, any definition of the Hellēnistai of Acts 6 based on linguistic or geographic considerations alone, while not entirely to be set aside, should be subsumed under a more primary understanding that stresses intellectual orientation, whether actual or assumed. In all likelihood, we should think of this group of people within the early church as “hellenized Jewish believers in Jesus” or “Grecian Jewish Christians”—i.e., as Jews living in Jerusalem who had come from the Diaspora and were under some suspicion, because of their place of birth, their speech, or both, of being more Hellenistic than Hebraic in their attitudes and outlook, but who, since coming to Jerusalem, had become Christians. Many of them, no doubt, had originally returned to the homeland out of religious ardor. Perhaps they tended to group together because of their similar backgrounds and common language, as the many Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem would seem to indicate (cf. Jewish Encyclopedia, 1:371–72, on the Diaspora synagogues in Jerusalem). But since attitudes and prejudices formed before conversion are often carried over into the Christian life—too often, sadly, the unworthy more than the worthy ones—some of the problems between the Hebraic Jewish believers and the Hellenistic Jewish believers in the church must be related to such earlier differences and prejudices.
Luke reports that the Hellenists’ “widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food” (v.1). Judaism had a system for the distribution of food and supplies to the poor, both to the wandering pauper and to residents of Jerusalem (cf. J. Jeremias, 126–34). There were also special religious communities, such as the Pharisees and the Essenes, that had their own agents in every city to provide their members “a social service somewhere between the private and public services” (Jeremias, 130). The early Christian community at Jerusalem also expressed its spiritual unity in a communal sharing of possessions and charitable acts (cf. 2:44–45, 4:32–5:11).
Apparently with the “increasing” number of believers and the passing of time, the number of Hellenistic widows who were dependent on relief from the church became disproportionately large. Many pious Jews of the Diaspora had moved to Jerusalem in their later years so as to be buried in the Holy Land and near the Holy City, and their widows would have had no relatives near at hand to care for them as would the widows of longtime residents. Nor as they became believers in Messiah Jesus would the resources of the national system of relief be readily available to them. So the problem facing the church became acute.
The account of the dispute cannot have been invented by Luke. To do so would have been incompatible with the development of his conciliatory purpose. If anything, Luke’s desire to emphasize harmonious relations within the early Christian community (cf. his three introductory summary statements of 2:42–47; 4:32–35; 5:12–16) may have led him to downplay the details of the dispute—which is probably why commentators have had difficulty in interpreting the situation.
Nor should we assume that the issue about the distribution of food was all that disrupted the fellowship. William Manson (The Epistle to the Hebrews [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951], 27–28) notes that “it is possible that the grievance in question was only the symptom of a larger tension between the two groups, arising from broad differences of outlook and sympathy.” Earlier prejudices and resentments may have been reasserting themselves in the Jerusalem church. And if the Hellenists spoke mostly in Greek, separate meetings within the Christian community may have been required for them—meetings that may have awakened former prejudices and resentments, both within the church and throughout the Jewish populace.
2–4 The apostles’ response was to call the Christians together and suggest a solution. It is significant that they were not prepared simply to ignore the problem. They seem to have realized that spiritual and material concerns are so intimately related in Christian experience that one always affects the other for better or worse. Similarly, there was no attempt either to assign blame or to act in any paternalistic fashion. Rather, the suggestion was that seven men “full of the Spirit and wisdom” be chosen from among the congregation (ex hymōn, “from among you,” which probably means “from among the Hellenists” alone) who could take responsibility in this matter (v.3). The apostles sought to give their attention exclusively “to prayer and the ministry of the word” (v.4)
The words “full of the Spirit and wisdom” evidently refer to guidance by the Holy Spirit and skill in administration and business, which both singly and together are so necessary in Christian service. While Christian ministers might wish such qualities were more characteristic of their boards and councils, it is only fair to say that church boards and councils often wish their ministers were given more “to prayer and the ministry of the word”! A pattern is set here for both lay leaders and clergy. Undoubtedly, God’s work would move ahead more effectively and efficiently were it followed more carefully.
The reference to the apostles as “the Twelve” (hoi dōkeka) occurs only here in Acts (cf. 1Co 15:5), though earlier Luke had spoken of “the Eleven” (hoi hendeka) in such an absolute and corporate manner (cf. Lk 24:9, 33; Ac 2:14). Likewise, the references to Christians as “the disciples” (hoi mathētai, GK 3412) in vv.1–2 are the first instances of this usage in Acts, though in the remainder of Acts it occurs fairly often. The designation, however, is not found in the Pauline letters or subapostolic writings. In using both of these terms, Luke seems to have gone back to the language of his sources and tried to make idiomatic use of it, though this usage may not have been entirely natural for him.
5–6 The apostles made a proposal, but the church, which is the community of God’s Spirit, made the decision. The apostles, therefore, laid their hands on the Seven and appointed them to be responsible for the daily distribution of food. The laying on of hands recalls Moses’ commissioning of Joshua (Nu 27:18–23), where through this act some of Moses’ authority was conferred to Joshua (cf. Lev 3:2; 16:21, where, conversely, by the laying on of hands there was the symbolic transference of sin). This is evidently what the laying on of hands was meant to symbolize here, with the apostles delegating their authority to the seven men selected by the church (cf. 8:17; 9:17; 13:3; 19:6 for other instances in Acts of this practice).
All the men appointed have Greek names. One of them is singled out as having been a Gentile convert to Judaism—i.e., a “proselyte” (prosēlytos, GK 4670). But it is impossible to be sure from the names themselves whether all seven were Hellenists, for at that time many Palestinian Jews also had Greek names. Nevertheless, the fact that Luke gives only Greek names suggests that all seven were, in fact, from the Hellenistic group of believers within the church. Likewise, the text does not expressly speak of these seven in terms of the ecclesiastical title “deacon” (diakonos, GK 1356), though it does use the cognate noun diakonia (“service,” “ministry,” “distribution”) in v.1 and the verb diakoneō (“wait on,” “serve”) in v.2 in describing what they were to do. It also uses diakonia [“service” or “ministry”] in v.4 as a synonym for the proclamation of the apostles. Yet the ministry to which the seven were appointed was functionally equivalent to what is spoken of as the office of “deacon” in 1 Timothy 3:8–13—which is but to affirm the maxim that in the NT “ministry was a function long before it became an office.”
NOTES
1 The NIV’s translation of ῾Ελλήνισται (Hellēnistai) as “Grecian Jews” is an endeavor to break away from the usual linguistic understanding and to define the term in a manner more sensitive to the cultural and ideological nuances. On the whole, it succeeds admirably. But its translation of ῾Εβραῖοι (Hebraioi) as “the Aramaic-speaking community” falls back into the old linguistic trap and raises a whole set of other problems. What is needed is some such translation as “the Hellenistic Jewish believers” and “the Hebraic Jewish believers.” The renderings “Hellenistic Jews” and “native Hebrews” in the NASB attempt to strike a middle ground between such a translation and the purely literal renderings of “Hellenists” and “Hebrews” by the NRSV, which leaves nuancing to the commentators.
Codex Bezae (D) adds ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ τῶν ῾Εβραίων (en tē diakonia tōn Hebraiōn, “in the service of the Hebrews”) at the end of v.1—an addition that at best is superfluous in view of the context and at worst misleading.
Luke has more references to widows and women than any of the other evangelists. The word χήρα (chēra, “widow,” GK 5939) occurs in Luke 2:37; 4:25–26; 7:12; 18:3, 5; 20:47–21:3 (= Mk 12:40–43); Acts 6:1 (here); 9:39, 41, while only twelve times more in the rest of the NT; γυνή (gynē, “woman,” GK 1222) occurs twenty-nine times in Matthew, sixteen times in Mark, forty-one times in Luke, seventeen times in John, nineteen times in Acts (thus sixty times in Luke-Acts), and eighty-seven times in the rest of the NT.
2 There are linguistic and functional similarities between the use of τὸ πλῆ᾿θος (to plēthos, “the whole number,” “entire”) in Acts 6:2, 5 and 15:12 (NIV, “all, the whole group,” and “the whole assembly”; NASB, “the congregation,” “the whole congregation” and “all the people”) and the use of the Hebrew rabbîm (“the many”) in 1QS 6:8–13, which deals with the order of public worship among the Qumran covenanters (cf. F. M. Cross Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran [London: Duckworth, 1958], 174). While neither the Essene encampment at Qumran nor the Jerusalem church could be called in a modern sense a democratic assembly, it is clear that in both groups the congregation was involved in the deliberations of its leaders.
The expression οἱ μαθηταί (hoi mathētai, “the disciples”) is also used absolutely of Christians at 6:7; 9:1 (with τοῦ κυρίου, tou kyriou, “of the Lord”), 10, 19, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 16:1; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:1, 30; 21:4, 16. In 9:25 it is used of the followers of Paul.
The word τράπεζα (trapeza, “table,” GK 5544) can mean either a moneychanger’s table or a table on which a meal is spread. Here the idea is not that of financial exchange or administration but care for the poor.
3 Codex Bezae (D) prefaces the apostle’s suggestion with the interrogative phrase τί οὖν ἐστιν (ti oun estin, “What, then, shall we do?”), which adds a colloquial touch to the narrative (as in Western readings at 2:37 and 5:8) but seems here to have been taken from 21:22. Codex Vaticanus (B) begins the verse with the first person plural imperative ἐπισκεψώμεθα (episkepsōmetha, “let us select” or “let us choose,” GK 2170), rather than the more widely attested second person plural imperative ἐπισκέψασθε (episkepsasthe; NIV, “[you] choose”; NASB, “[you] select”), probably to make it clear that the apostles were not excluded in the selection of the Seven.
Many external witnesses add ἁγίου (hagiou, “holy,” GK 41) after πνεύματος (pneumatos, “Spirit,” GK 4460), which would have been natural for scribes to do. The shorter text, however, is better supported by P8 P74 א B D Chrysostom et al.
5 The Western text (D, and as represented by recensions of the Old Latin and Coptic versions) adds τῶν μαθητῶν (tōn mathētōn, “of the disciples”) after παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους (pantos tou plēthous; NIV, “the whole group”; NASB, “the whole congregation”), evidently so that the proposal wouldn’t be thought to have pleased others outside the Christian community.
Munck, 57, has written: “Surely, to assume that the primitive church would choose a committee for social services in which only one of the feuding parties was represented would be to underestimate its efficiency in practical matters. Such a procedure would probably have given rise to complaints from the Hebrews.” Munck may be right. But perhaps the early church had a greater reliance on God’s Spirit and a greater confidence in God’s people than we have today, and so was not interested in merely balancing various concerns in its selection of a committee.
REFLECTIONS
Acts 6:1–6 is particularly instructive as something of a pattern for church life today. First, the early church took very seriously the combination of spiritual and material concerns in carrying out its God-given ministry. In so doing, it stressed prayer and the proclamation of the Word, but never to the exclusion of providing material aid to the poor and correcting injustices. Even when the church found it necessary to assign differing internal responsibilities and allocate different functions, the early believers saw these as varying aspects of one total ministry.
Second, the early church seems to have been prepared to adjust its procedures, alter its organizational structure, and develop new posts of responsibility in response to the existing needs and for the sake of the ongoing proclamation of the word of God. Throughout the years, various “restorationist” movements in the church have attempted to reach back and recapture the explicit forms and practices of the earliest Christians and to reproduce them as far as possible in their pristine forms, believing that in doing so they are more truly biblical than other church groups. But Luke’s narrative here suggests that to be fully biblical is to be constantly engaged in adapting traditional methods and structures to meet existing situations, both for the sake of the welfare of the whole church and for the outreach of the gospel.
Finally, Luke’s account suggests certain restraining attitudes that could be incorporated into contemporary church life. Among these are (1) refusing to get involved in the practice of assigning blame where things have gone wrong, preferring rather to expend the energies of God’s people on correcting injustices, praying, and proclaiming the word; and (2) refusing to become paternalistic in solving problems, which implies a willingness to turn over to others the necessary authority for working out solutions—even, as seems to have been the case here, to those who would have felt the problem most acutely and may therefore have been best able to solve it.