Part 100
H. Outline. Prelude (1:1-26)
Introduction; Ascension; Election of Matthias Act 1: The Church in Jerusalem (2:1—7:60)
1031 ACTS
also highlights the fact that there is now a gap: Judas, the last in the list in Lk 6:16, is no longer one ofthe group. The story of Judas' treachery (which Luke assumes his readers will know) was described in Lk 22:3-6, 47-53, but Luke has not yet (unlike Matthew, who appears to know a different story: Mt 27:3— 10) told his readers anything about the traitor's fate, and this episode gives him an excuse to do so. But the defection of Judas also creates a theological problem, not only because of the symbolic significance ofthe number 12 (Lk 22:30), but also because of the high value Luke places on the apostolic office. He has already stressed that the apostles were 'chosen' by Jesus and taught by him 'through the Holy Spirit' (v. 2). Judas' treachery shows that neither fact constitutes an automatic guarantee of fidelity. For Luke, acts of treachery against the Spirit (especially if there is a financial motive) are punished by God: cf. Acts 5:1-11.
gospel: the gift of the Spirit, which has marked out Jesus' special status during the period of his earthly ministry (Lk 3:16, 22) is about to be extended to his followers, and Luke's second volume is going to spell out what this promise means. This summary recapitulates the final scenes of the gospel (Lk 24), but with certain small differences. Earlier commentators have speculated that the differences might result from clumsy editing when Luke's work was split into two volumes: but each volume as we have it fits the standard length of a papyrus roll, and it is more likely that the bridge is original. Elsewhere, when he retells a story he has already told, Luke shows that he is not averse to varying the details of the story, perhaps because ancient educational practice placed high value on the ability to introduce variety into the retelling of well-known stories.
(1:6—12) Ascension The narrative of Acts proper begins with the apostles 'gathered together' (v. 6) to question Jesus for the last time. The question about the kingdom takes us back to the gospel (cf Lk 4:43). Although Luke lacks the eschatological immediacy of Mark, the preaching of the kingdom remains an essential element of the gospel in Luke's two volumes. Jesus' answer redefines the future horizon: the eschatological future of apocalyptic expectation is not ruled out, but the apostles' attention is redirected to a closer and more immediate future. The imminent coming of the Spirit (v. 5) will mean their own empowerment for the task of acting as 'witnesses' to Jesus (v. 8). The primary semantic location for the activity of 'witnessing' is forensic, and indeed much of the action within Acts will take place (as Jesus had foretold, Lk 12:11—12) in a variety of trial situations, v. 8 can be read as a geographical programme for the whole book, with the first 7 chapters set in Jerusalem, 8—n charting the spread of the gospel to the surrounding areas within Syria-Palestine ('Judea and Samaria'), and v. 13 onwards following Paul's mission ever further afield.
Peter's call for a replacement for Judas, based (as so often in Acts) on an appeal to Scripture (v. 20), reinforces the identity of the group at this crisis point in its existence, and also constitutes a de facto recognition of his own authority in the group. In this interim period between the departure of Jesus and the arrival ofthe Spirit, the only resource is to ask God to indicate his 'choice' of a replacement (v. 24, cf. 1:2) by means of casting lots (v. 26), a means of ascertaining the divine purpose familiar both in the Graeco-Roman world and in the Bible.
Act One: The Church in Jerusalem (2:1-7:60)
Act I Scene i: The Day of Pentecost (2:1-47).
As so often in Acts, the first big scene ofthe book is structured around a major theophanic event, the coming of the Spirit (w. 1-4), followed by crowd reactions (w. 5-13). Luke then gives us a theological interpretation ofthe event in Peter's speech (w. 14—36). But the speech is also an event in its own right which triggers its own reactions and results (w. 37—42). This opening section closes with a transitional summary passage describing the growth ofthe church (w. 43-7). (2:1-4) The Coming ofthe Spirit Like the departure of Jesus, the coming ofthe Spirit for Luke is a definite event, located in a particular time and place and describable in empirical terms. The 'day of Pentecost' (v. i) ties the story into a Jewish liturgical time-frame which began with the festival of Passover (Lk 22:1), and which in its turn was to determine the liturgical shape ofthe Christian year, limiting the passion and resurrection events to a period of fifty days (and incidentally explaining the continuing presence of large pilgrim crowds in the city: w. 9—11). But Luke's solemn dating formula ('fulfilled': v. i) suggests that he may also see a symbolic 'fit' between the outpouring ofthe Spirit and the festival which in first-century Judaism was a major celebration ofthe Sinai theophany and the giving ofthe Law to Israel. 'All together in one place' emphasizes the spiritual unity ofthe group whose constitution has been so carefully described in ch. i.
Luke alone of the evangelists closes the story of Jesus with a definite point of departure marking the end of the resurrection appearances. But the ascension is no afterthought: narrative clues to this denouement are laid as early as Lk 9:51, and the story is prefigured in the narrative of the transfiguration
(Lk 9:28—36: parallels include the mountain, the cloud, and the two 'men'). Luke's description ofthe Mount of Olives as 'a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem' (v. 12) highlights the scene ofthe ascension as a distinct location, the only narrative setting dignified as a 'mountain' in Acts. This is a story that moves not only outwards from Jerusalem but also downwards from the mountain. The story of Acts starts in a place where Jesus is visible, angels speak clearly, and the cloud between earth and heaven is momentarily thinned. From this point onwards, discerning and understanding God's purpose will become progressively harder. (1:13-26) Election of Matthias There is one more task to be completed before the action proper begins. The disciples wait obediently in Jerusalem for the promised coming ofthe Spirit (for the 'upper room' cf. Lk 22:12). 'Devoted themselves ... to prayer' (v. 14) suggests the virtue of dogged perseverance (cf. Rom 12:12; Col 4:2). 'With one accord' (v. 14) underlines the unity of the group, which here includes women and Jesus' mother and brothers, a surprising (cf. Lk 8:19—21) though unemphasized detail. Luke's list ofthe names ofthe apostles acts as a bridge with the first volume (cf. Lk 6:14-16). But it
The event itself is both an auditory (v.2) and a visual experience (v. 3): as so often in biblical theophany, the stress is on comparison rather than direct description (cf. Ezeki:i3). Both wind and fire are associated with God's self-revelation in the HB: cf. Ex 19:16-19; i Kings 19:11-12; Isa 6:6. But the choice
ACTS 1032
the final end is still to come (cf. Lk 21:9). (3) The promise is inclusive of age, gender, and social class (w. 17—18); the Spirit is poured out on 'all flesh' (v. 17), and salvation is offered to 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord' (v. 21).
of these two images is particularly apt for the coming of the Spirit. 'Wind', both in Hebrew and in Greek, is closely associated with 'spirit'. The image of fire links with the Spirit's work of judgement (Lk 3:16-17). And the metaphor of 'tongues' (v. 3) links with the fact that the result of this manifestation of divine power is inspired speech (v. 4).
In v. 22 Peter turns to the implied underlying question, Who was Jesus? However dramatic the events surrounding the apostles, they cannot be understood without reference to Jesus. Peter's message here falls into a distinctive pattern analysed in Dodd's (1936) classic study of the apostolic preaching. This pattern is distinct from the Pauline gospel and may well have come to Luke via some form of primitive Christian tradition. The miracles performed by Jesus function as a form of divine attestation of his ministry, but this is a man through whom God was working in the midst of his people
(2:5—13) Varied Reactions The essentially private experience in the 'house' immediately becomes public: a crowd gathers at the sound (v. 5) of a multiplicity of voices speaking in a cosmopolitan variety of languages. This first proclamation is not the result of a conscious mission plan, but a divinely inspired event which draws a curious audience. Luke heightens the dramatic effect of the Pentecost event by shifting his narrative perspective from the house to the streets outside: the crowd displays all the standard reactions to divine action (w. 6, 7, 12). But while some hear only a confused babble of ecstatic (or drunken?) voices (v. 13), others hear 'each in their own dialect' a proclamation of God's 'great deeds' (v. n). This is a miracle of hearing, a reversal of the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel. Some have speculated that Luke has misunderstood the phenomenon of glossolalia; but among groups that practise speaking in tongues today, there are reports of intelligible speech which is heard as a real language unknown to the speaker.
(v. 2 2). Responsibility for his death is threefold: the immediate agency ('lawless men'); the proximate motive force (the local audience which had witnessed Jesus' ministry, w. 22-3); and behind both, the divine plan (v. 24). Once again, it is Scripture that provides the explanatory key to all this (w. 25-8, citing Ps 16:8-11). The hope David entertained (v. 26), Peter says, proved false, if it was for himself: David died and his body was disposed of in the normal way (v. 29). Therefore the psalm must be interpreted as a prophetic oracle referring to the Messiah. Only after this scriptural testimony (which establishes the divine necessity of what happened to Jesus) does Peter introduce the personal witness of the apostles to the resurrection (v. 32).
The crowd itself is carefully characterized. The elaborate list of w. 9-11 evokes the world-wide Jewish diaspora, nonchalantly straddling the borders of the Roman empire, and firmly centered on Jerusalem (Scott 1994: 561). Rome, on this mental map, is peripheral, the westernmost point imaginable in a sequence that looks to points east, north, south, and west before coming back to the centre. The list of exotic placenames is a foretaste of the geographical explosion that will come to dominate the narrative of Acts; but it is also a reminder that there are many potential journeys that will remain unnarrated, just as there are many more apostles and evangelists than those whose stories Luke will tell. (2:14-36) Peter's Speech Peter acts as spokesman for the apostles (v. 14). As so often in Acts, Luke leaves it to his characters to provide the theological insights that explain the raw data of experience. This speech, the first major rhetorical composition of the book, is carefully signalled as a formal act of speaking (v. 14), with speakers and audience precisely defined. It introduces two key passages in the early Christian armoury of scriptural proof-texts: both show signs of intensive exegetical labour, and they may well have come down to Luke via an oral (or possibly even written) testimonia-tradition (cf. ACTS E. 2).
The final section of the speech brings the focus back to the the visible and audible events of Pentecost (v. 33): the gift ofthe
Spirit is the direct result (and thus also the proof) of Jesus' exaltation to heaven. Luke shares a conviction (expressed in different ways in Jn 16:7 and in Eph 4:8-12) that the departure of Jesus was a precondition for the coming ofthe Spirit. Here the ascension is not described as a separate event, but is implicit in the resurrection, and this is the point at which Jesus achieves the title of'Lord and Christ' (v. 36, cf. Rom 1:4). The Christological use of Ps no (v. 34) is widespread in early Christian hermeneutic, linked to the final phrase of Ps 16:11 by the reference to God's 'righthand' (Lindars 1961: 38—45).
(2:37—41) Reactions and Results The crowd reacts dramatically (v. 37): 'What shall we do?' Peter's prescription encapsulates the basic Christian message in four points: repentance, baptism, forgiveness, the gift ofthe Spirit (v. 38). Israel has to repent (5:31), but so too does the pagan world (17:30). The double package 'repentance and baptism' is associated with the forgiveness of sins (cf. Lk 3:3); but exactly how the association works is not clearly defined. Baptism is now 'in the name of Jesus Christ', and will be followed (or accompanied) by the gift ofthe Holy Spirit. This is the 'promise' that has dominated Peter's speech. It is not restricted to an apostolic elite: it is as universal as the need for repentance (v. 39). The final line ofthe Joel quotation (Joel 2:32), embellished and cross-referenced to Isa 57:19, highlights the universality of God's promise to the polyglot Jerusalem crowd. The final verse of the scene dramatically highlights the sermon's positive results (v. 41) and marks the first stage ofthe church's exponential growth from the small, inward-looking group described in ch. i to a significant movement making a worldwide impact (26:26).
The first part of the speech (w. 14—21) answers the question 'What does this mean?' (v. 12). The group cannot be drunk, Peter explains, because it is only breakfast-time (v. 15). On the contrary, this is something predicted in Scripture. The extended quotation from Joel 2:28—32 (LXX) clarifies a number of points about the apostolic proclamation, (i) The phenomenon of ecstatic speech is identified with the biblical gift of prophecy, and is the work of the same Spirit of God. (2) This is a phenomenon of 'the last days' (v. 17: Luke heightens the eschatological dimension of the original), but belongs to a stage before the final 'day of the Lord' (v. 20): for Luke, the coming of Jesus heralded the beginning of the end-time, but
io33 ACTS
(3:11—26) 'No Other Name' Peter's second speech essentially answers the same two questions as his first: 'What does this mean?' (cf. 2:12) and 'What shall we do?' (cf. 2:37). This time the focus is on the origin of the power that has healed the lame beggar. The question was just as important for Greek readers as for Jewish: was it their own exceptional piety that had given the apostles this divine power (v. 12)? The answer is No: the healing, as the beggar had correctly surmised (w. 9-10; 13), was the work of God; but God's agent (just as in 2:22) was Jesus, the one chosen by God but denied and destroyed by this very Jerusalem crowd. Peter's words here forge a damning chain of indictment against his audience. Jesus is described in v. 13 as God's 'servant' or 'child': the word is pais (boy), not huios (son), and probably echoes the prophetic 'Servant of God' in LXX Isa 52—3 (the word may reflect an early Christology; cf. also Acts 8:32-5). He is the 'holy and righteous one' (v.i4) and the 'author [or pioneer] of life' (v. 15, cf. Acts 5:31; Heb 2:10), the one whom God 'glorified' (v. 13; cf. Isa 52:13) and raised from the dead (v. 15). In each case the rhetorical effect is heightened by the contrast between Jesus' status in the eyes of God and his systematic dishonouring and rejection by the people ('whom you delivered up... you denied... you killed'). As for the apostles, their only claim to fame is to act as Jesus' witnesses (v. 15) and to exercise the faith in his name which brings about wholeness (v. 16).
(2:42-7) The Church Grows The first big scene of the drama concludes with a summary passage describing the ongoing life of the fledgling community. Luke does not on the whole show much interest in the regular, established patterns of church life, either in Jerusalem or in the Pauline mission: we are left to assume that the activities sketched here in outline continue to form the unstated backdrop to the more dramatic events highlighted in the narrative. Three new elements (teaching, fellowship, and the breaking of bread) have now been added to the prayer that forms the backbone of the group's regular activities (cf. 1:15). 'The breaking of bread' (w. 42, 46) seems to be distinct from the mere taking of food (v. 46); it is virtually a technical term in the NT (outside Acts it is used only of the last supper and of Jesus' feeding miracles), and at the time Luke is writing can hardly mean anything other than the ritual meal already known to Paul (i Cor 10:16; 11:24). 'Th£ fellowship' is the only item on the list to be expanded: the group's unity finds practical expression in the common ownership of property (w. 44—5). v. 47 sums up this first stage of the church's existence as an idyllic state in which the group is in harmony with its parent community
('the whole people': laos in Luke normally refers to the people of Israel) and with God: it is a paradise garden where praise and growth are both spontaneous.
Act I Scene 2: Healing at the Temple Gate (3:1-4:22)
There are, however, a number of mitigating factors. Both the crowd (whom Peter addresses as 'brothers') and their leaders acted 'in ignorance' (v. 17; cf. 13:27). Jesus' death was also part of the divine plan (v. 18): the suffering of the Messiah is something foretold by 'all the prophets'. This is an important theme for Luke, who has already had Jesus explain it to his disciples after the resurrection (Lk 24:26, 46), but he has not yet revealed precisely which prophetic texts can be interpreted in this way. The type of the 'prophet like Moses' in w. 22—3 (based on Deut 18:19, linked with Lev 23:29) hints at a biblical typology that will allow Luke to find a scriptural prototype for the rejection of God's messenger (this theme is more fully developed in ch. 7). Here, however, the emphasis (v. 19) is on the appeal for repentance, seen as a precondition for 'times of refreshing' (v. 20) and the 'restoration of all things' (v. 21). These puzzling phrases are not easy to parallel elsewhere: they may be relics of a pre-Lukan eschatology, but both underline the fact that even for Luke the period of apostolic mission marks only a temporary postponement, not a replacement, of the final consummation. The speech closes on a positive note: what is on offer to the Jerusalem crowd is a fulfilment of their heritage, both as 'sons of the prophets' (v. 25, cf. 2:39) and as 'sons of the covenant' (v. 25). There is a Pauline ring about Peter's 'to you first' in verse 26
The next major scene opens with the healing of a lame beggar at the temple gate (3:1-10). The miracle is given a theological interpretation through a lengthy speech by Peter (3:11-26), which in turn provokes its own reactions (4:1—4). But this time there is a new twist to the plot. Peter's action attracts the attention of the temple authorities, and the apostles are arrested and put on trial (4:5-12). This is the first of a series of trial scenes that will dominate Acts, bringing out the full forensic implications of the apostles' calling to act as Jesus' 'witnesses' (1:8), and expanding the circle of characters used by Luke to explore the theological implications of the unfolding narrative (4:13—22).
(3:1—10) A Lame Man Healed Luke has already told us that the apostolic band has the power to work miracles (2:43). Now he gives us a detailed account of one paradigmatic healing miracle, precisely timed and located, but with nothing about it at first sight to warn of the controversial situation it will provoke. Luke selects his actors from within a larger group: of all the apostles named in ch. i, only Peter and John have scenes in their own right, and even John is very much a supporting character here (v. 4). Peter's lack of 'silver and gold' (v. 6: perhaps due to the community's policy on property, 2:44) highlights both the unexpected character of the miracle (the beggar is looking for money, not healing, v. 5) and the apostles' own dependence: only 'in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth' can healing take place. There is a deliberate patterning on gospel healing stories here (cf. Lk 5:23), and in both cases the play on words is almost certainly deliberate: Peter 'raised'
(cf. Rom 1:16): God's offer of blessing is universal, but it is being offered first to Israel.
(4:1—4) Conflicting Reactions The speech is dramatically interrupted by an intervention from authority. This is the first of many in Acts; here (since the healing took place in the temple precincts), it is appropriately the temple authorities who come to silence the apostles. The Sadducees were an aristocratic party linked closely with the priestly hierarchy. Luke ascribes to them an appropriate motive for the arrest (v. 2), since he has already identified the Sadducees as the party within Judaism
(egeiren, v. 7) the beggar to a new way of life as well as to new mobility. The crowd reaction (v. 10) heightens the emotional impact of the miracle as well as its solid attestation: here is a whole crowd of witnesses to whom the lame beggar was well known (cf. 3:16; 4:22).
ACTS 1034
who 'say that there is no resurrection' (Lk 20:27); Paul wiU later exploit this to good effect (Acts 23:6—9). This may explain why Luke picks out the resurrection (which has not been especially prominent) as the particularly offensive aspect of Peter's speech. The circumstantial detail that it was 'evening' (v. 3) ties the episode in with 3:1: we are still within the same dramatic scene. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the church continues to grow (v. 4): many of 'the people' (v. i) react positively to 'the word' (a favourite Lukan expression for the preaching of the gospel, cf Lk 1:2), and the total number of believers now reaches 'about five thousand'.
is impossible to gainsay, even for hostile observers (v. 22). Thus the 'signs' given by God (v. 22; cf. 2:19) are in their own right an important part of the apostolic testimony (cf. 14:3).
Act I Interlude: The Spirit-Filled Life (4:23-5:16)
Most commentators are agreed that the story of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11) is in some way an isolated relic of tradition relating to a bygone phase of the Jerusalem church. Luke has bracketed this with two summary passages about the community of goods (4:32—7) and the progress of the church (5:12-16), and prefaces the whole section with a glimpse ofthe apostolic circle at prayer (4:23-31). The effect is of an interlude in the drama, underlining the power of the Spirit at work in the church, and the authority ofthe apostles, especially Peter.
(4:5—12) Arrest and Trial After a night in jail, the apostles are brought before a full session of the Sanhedrin (v. 15), the ruling council of Judea: the titles listed here enumerate all the groups from which the council was made up (cf. Lk 9:22; 20:1). Annas had been deposed as high priest in 15 CE, but continued to wield influence behind the scenes during the term of his son-in-law Caiaphas (18—36 CE: cf. Lk 3:2). The trial scenes so prominent in Acts highlight the forensic dimension of the apostolic call to bear witness (1:8, cf. Lk 21:13—15). In Luke's dramatic presentation it is not easy to distinguish forensic testimony from preaching: Peter's reply to the Council's question (v. 7) picks up more or less where his sermon left off. The key point (as in 3:16) concerns the origin of the power responsible for the healing miracle: by identifying this power with Jesus (v. 10) Peter once again faces the ruling authorities with the possibility that their treatment of Jesus was a terrible misjudgement. The point is rammed home with a new scriptural text (v. n): the paradox of the rejected stone (Ps 118:22) was a favourite in early Christian reflection on the foreshadowing of Jesus in the Scriptures (Lk 20:17, cffurther i Pet 2:7; Lindars 1961:169—74). Peter's final sentence goes further than anything he has yet said: Christ is the only means of salvation. The Greek word used of the beggar's healing is 'saved', a word used routinely of physical health and well-being (cf. Lk 8:48), and this allows Peter to answer the question in terms of the broader eschatological concept of 'salvation' already evoked in 2:40 and 2:21. Joel 2:32 promises 'salvation' from the tribulations of the last days to 'all who call on the name of the Lord', and this was almost certainly interpreted by the early Christians as a reference to the name of Christ. (4:13-22) Deliberations of the Council Luke uses the privileged position of the narrator to give us an insight into the inner workings of the Sanhedrin. Readers do not need to know much about the politics of first-century Jerusalem to pick up the elitist perspective here (we do not need to assume that the apostles were totally illiterate, just that they had not attained the professional educational levels of the 'elders and scribes'). This elitist perspective is reinforced by the Council's 'us' and 'them' attitude to 'the people' (w. 16, 17, 21)—an attitude which, Luke implies, is reciprocal (v. 21). 'Boldness' (parrhesiav. 13) is not physical courage so much as 'frankness' or 'freedom of speech', a philosophical virtue particularly admired by the Greeks. The apostles' refusal to be silenced (v. 19) is a classic statement of philosophical parrhesia. Finally, the Council's perspective is characterized by 'wonder' (v. 13): the supernatural is never very far away in this narrative, and Luke makes it clear that the fact of the beggar's healing (v. 14)
(4:23—31) A Prophetic Prayer Like other biblical writers, Luke uses prayer to provide ongoing comment on the storyline. The authorities have just imposed a total ban on speaking or teaching in Jesus' name (4:18), and the new situation has to be reported and evaluated. Peter's 'you must judge' (4:19) is in a sense addressed to the reader as well as to the Sanhedrin: what is the correct Christian attitude in the face of such a prohibition, imposed by the legitimate civic authorities? The apostles themselves are in no doubt that the situation calls for the legitimate exercise of free speech in the face of a tyrannical abuse of authority (v. 29). Their prayer creates a theological framework for this stance, first by evoking the sovereignty of God (v. 24), as the ultimate authority that relativizes all human seats of power, and second by locating the present situation in Scripture. Ps 2 (quoted in w. 25-6) exerted a powerful influence on the Christology of the early church: the word translated Messiah in v. 26 is christos, which makes it easy to read the psalm as a direct prophecy of those involved in the trial of Jesus (v. 27). The implication is that the hostility experienced by his followers simply makes them part of the same predetermined pattern (v. 28). Only Luke includes Herod in the passion narrative (Lk 22:6-12). The renewed visitation ofthe Spirit (almost a second Pentecost, v. 31) serves as a confirmation that the apostles' reading ofthe situation is the right one. (4:32^7) The Common Life This summary is a slightly fuller repetition of 2:44-5. Th£ added detail that the money raised from the sale of property was channelled through the apostles (v. 35) heightens the sense of centralized authority. There is no sense that Luke envisaged the Jerusalem community establishing a genuine coenobitic life (presumably any Jerusalem residents who joined the church continued to live in their own homes: cf. 2:46; 5:42). The emphasis is on the sale of disposable property by those who could afford it, in order to create a surplus for charitable distribution (v. 34, echoing Deut 15:4). This emphasis ties in with Luke's own interest in the proper use of surplus wealth (cf. Lk 6:20, 24), and it is conceivable that he has simply misunderstood an early tradition that may have reflected something more like the Essene lifestyle. (Sterling 2000). The mention of Barnabas (w. 36-7) provides a positive example of this ideal use of wealth; it also (with typically Lukan economy) introduces a character, in good standing with the apostles, who will prove important at a later stage in the plot (cf. ACTS 9:26-30).
io35 ACTS
(5:1-11) Ananias and Sapphira As it stands, this story does not quite fit the background information Luke has given us. v. 4 seems to conflict with 2:44 and 4:32 (unless 'all' is just Lucan hyperbole), and raises questions about the severity of the punishment: if the community of goods could be partial, and was purely voluntary, why is Ananias treated so harshly? The difficulties of understanding the story as it stands make it more rather than less likely that Luke has taken it over from tradition, and perhaps imperfectly understood it. The parallel with Qumran (Fitzmyer 1998: 318) makes it clear that it is the couple's conspiracy to deceive, rather than the absolute monetary value of the sale, that constitutes the heart of their sin against koinonia: the failure to share money is simply a symptom of a more serious failure to be 'of one mind' within the community (cf. Eph 4:25; Col 3:9). Lying to the community is 'lying to God' (v. 4) and 'tempting the Holy
(sect, v. 17) to give a more nuanced description of the political groupings of first-century Palestine: the term is appropriately used elsewhere both of the Pharisees (15:5; 26:5) and of the Christians (24:5, 14; 28:22). 'Jealousy' (v. 17) may not be the best description of their motive, however: zclos also means 'zeal', and in Acts may often be better seen in terms of a praiseworthy, if misguided, religious zeal (Paul uses it of himself in Gal 1:14, Phil 3:6, and cf. Rom 10:2). The conundrum posed by Peter in 4:19, if the reader still has any doubts, is dramatically resolved here as the apostles are miraculously released and instructed by no less than 'an angel of the Lord' to continue with their preaching mission in the temple (w. 19-21). The miracle provides divine sanction for the apostles' civil disobedience, and leaves the priestly authorities in an embarassing and farcical position (recounted by Luke with a touch of dramatic irony, w. 21-5). The apostles' popularity with 'the people' is again a factor in their treatment by the ruling authorities (v. 26).
Spirit' (v. 9; cf. Phil 2:1-2 and 2 Cor 13:14 for a connection between the Spirit and koinonia). In Luke's narrative, the story also serves to highlight the authority of the church (ekklesia: v. ii is Luke's first use of this term) as the locus of God's Spirit, and especially to underline the supernatural insight and authority of Peter, who sees through the deception (w. 3—5, 8—9). It is another of the 'signs' God sends to confirm the church's spiritual authority, and, like the healing miracles, induces 'great fear' (w. 5, n). (5:12-16) Signs and Wonders The interlude concludes with a summary passage describing the ongoing healing ministry of the apostles. The note on 'Solomon's Portico' (v. 12) is a realistic reflection of the group's actual size: the only place such a large group could now be 'all together' is in a large public space. For the stoa of Solomon (the site of Peter's impromptu sermon in 3:11), see Jos. J.W. 5:185; Jn 10:22. Luke stresses again the high reputation of the Christian group among 'the people' (v. 13). v. 15 implies that the bringing out of the sick for healing is a manifestation of 'belief, and there may be a contrast between this secret form of believing and the public commitment that would be implied by openly 'joining' the crowd in the portico (v. 13); the mention of'women' (who might not join a public teaching session) may support this view. The scope and popularity of this healing ministry are described in terms that rival that of Jesus (cf. Lk 4:40-1, 6:1819). The healing power emanating from Peter is so great that there is no need even to touch him (v. 15: cf. Lk 7:1—10; 8:43).
(5:27—32) The Trial This second trial is essentially a reprise of the first, with the difference that the charge now is direct disobedience of an explicit instruction (v. 28). Peter's reply (v. 29) is equally unequivocal: like the philosopher Socrates or the prophet Daniel, the apostles take their orders from a higher authority, and cannot consider themselves bound by any human court. The charge that they intend 'to bring this man's blood on us' should be read within the precise sociopolitical context that Luke has taken care to define: 'us' here means the ruling authorities, and stands in contrast to 'the people' who support the apostles. Peter's speech summarizes the essential points made in the previous sermons: Jesus has been raised and exalted by God; his present position at God's right hand is a precondition for the outpouring of gifts (w. 31— 2). A new element is the description of Jesus' death as 'hanging him on a tree' (v. 30), using language derived from Deut 21:22—3 (cfIO:39)> me connection with crucifixion had already been made by exegetes at Qumran (Fitzmyer 1998: 337), and is also made by Paul (Gal 3:13). The primary result of Jesus' exaltation is that the gift of'repentance and forgiveness of sins' is now offered to Israel (v. 31).
(5:33—9) The Advice of Gamaliel Luke again adopts the privileged position of an omniscient narrator to report a private debate from within the ranks of the Sanhedrin (v. 34). Gamaliel's intervention introduces an ironic commentary on the unfolding plot, posing a question that the reader will be able to answer (Luke makes sure of that) even if the council members cannot (w. 38-9). In fact Gamaliel's question will prove to be a key issue for the whole narrative: it is not only those outside the church who sometimes fail to recognize where God is at work. The role attributed to the historical figure of Gamaliel at this point in the narrative is not in itself implausible: this is Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, one of the great Pharisaic teachers of the first century, who flourished £.25—50 CE and is later said to have been the teacher of Paul (22:3). There is however a historical problem about the examples he cites. Theudas and Judas are both mentioned (in the same order) by Josephus at Ant. 20. 97—8, 102; but the mention of Judas is a flashback to the period of the first Roman census of Judea (cf. Lk 2:1-2). Theudas, on the other hand, is dated by Josephus to the
Act I Scene 3: Apostles on Trial (5:17-42)
At the end of the trial in ch. 4, the apostles are issued with a blanket prohibition on teaching in the name of Jesus. Their disdainful reply (4:19) leaves the reader in little doubt that the authorities will soon have cause to arrest them again: and so it proves. But this time things are stacked against the forces of officialdom. Arrest is followed immediately by miraculous release (5:17—26); official reprimand meets only defiance (5:27—32); and at least one respected member of the Council begins to doubt the wisdom of pursuing the case (5:33-40). The scene closes with a brief summary (5:41—2) describing the gospel's triumphant progress.
(5:17—26) Arrest and Escape This time it is the whole apostolic group that finds itself in jail (v. 18). Like his contemporary Josephus, Luke is happy to use the Greek term hairesis
ACTS 1036
sources refer to synagogues in the city, and the Theodotus inscription makes it reasonably certain that there was at least one Greek-speaking synagogue in Jerusalem in the first century (Fitzmyer 1998: 356-8; Riesner 1995: 179-210; text in Falk 1995: 281). The charges against Stephen echo those brought against Jesus in the gospels (for 'blasphemy,' cf. Lk 22:71; and for threatening the temple, cf. Mk 14:56—8). The charge of subverting the law (v. 14) is new, and will reappear in the charges against Paul (cf. esp. 21:28). The law had a peculiar importance in the diaspora as a marker of identity: interestingly, Theodotus declares that his synagoge or 'meetinghouse' is set up 'for the reading of the Law and instruction in the commandments'. (7:2-53) Stephen's Speech Stephen's speech seems on the surface to have little to do with the charges against him. Like most of the apologetic speeches in Acts, it is part of a larger polemical discourse, building on and developing the arguments already put forward in the sermons and trial speeches of the apostles. Nevertheless, this particular speech does have a distinctive ethos, which has led some commentators to suppose an underlying Hellenist or Antiochene source. In genre, the speech is quite different from the speeches of Peter. It falls into the category of 'rewritten Bible', a selective retelling of biblical history from a particular theological standpoint, of which we have several examples in intertestamental literature (cf. PBJL A5; A6); the form occurs already in the Bible itself, cf. e.g. Ps 105. Like other Jewish groups in the Second Temple period, the Christians used the biblical past to define their own identity. (7:2-8) The Call of God Abraham is recognized throughout the NTas the spiritual ancestor of Jewish and Gentile believers alike. But the main actor in this national epic is God, who commands (v. 3), removes (v. 4), gives (w. 5, 8), and promises (v. 5). Human achievement is defined in terms of being receptive to the vision of God (v. 2) and obedient to his word (w. 4, 8). Like the author of Hebrews (11:8—10), Luke stresses Abraham's reliance on God's promise (v. 5) and highlights the experience of alienation rather than the inheritance of the land (v. 6). And by a careful selection of texts from Gen 15 and Ex 2—3 Luke subtly redefines the promise itself to focus on the creation of a worshipping community rather than on the acquisition of land (latreudn, 'worship' in v. 7 echoes Lk 1:74, and both pick up Ex 3:12, which refers to Sinai, not Canaan).
procuratorship of Fadus (44-6 CE). This is well after the dramatic date of Luke's story, which must be before the death of Herod in 44 (Acts 12:20—3). Either Luke has made a mistake (possibly due to faulty memory of a source similar to that used by Josephus); or Josephus has; or there was another, earlier Theudas: all these options have been argued by commentators. (5:40-2) Summary and Transition The Sanhedrin's decision to treat the apostles with caution does not prevent their being flogged (v. 40), a routine treatment in ancient courts used for eliciting the truth from witnesses as well as for punishment. The apostles' 'joy' (v. 41) establishes their credentials as martyrs: 'worthy to be dishonoured for the Name' is a highly paradoxical statement that expresses the Christian theology of martyrdom very well, and illustrates the importance attached to honour and shame in the first-century Mediterranean world. The section closes with an assurance that the apostles' parrhesia is undaunted (v. 42): the gospel message is assiduously proclaimed, not only in the temple but 'from house to house'.
Act I Scene 4: The First Christian Martyr (6:1-7:60)
The Jerusalem section of Luke's narrative closes with an extended trial scene incorporating the longest speech in the book (7:2-53). This scene introduces a new character, Stephen, and his story is prefaced with a piece of church 'business' which provides the necessary background to his appointment (6:1—7) an(^ to the controversy that brought him to trial (6:8-7:1). (6:1-7) Appointment of the Seven Luke gives us a tantalizingly brief glimpse into the inner workings of the church, bracketed with two summary verses (5:42; 6:7). The terms 'Hellenists' and 'Hebrews' (v. i) almost certainly refer to a language-based distinction between the two major groupings of converts in the Jerusalem church. The Hellenists are Jews whose major language is Greek (the international language of the eastern Mediterranean), and the Hebrews are Jews whose major language is Hebrew or Aramaic. The fact that all the seven have Greek names (v. 5), and that Stephen immediately gets into dispute with members of a group of diaspora synagogues (v. 9), suggests a diaspora connection, even though it is true that many Palestinian Jews also spoke Greek. The choice of candidates for this extension (or better, division) of the ministry is taken very seriously: the 'body of disciples' (v. 2) is treated like the assembly of a Greek city, who approve the apostles' proposal (v. 5) and 'choose' their representatives with care (v. 5: cf 1:2, 24). The candidates are already marked out as 'full of the Spirit' (w. 3, 5), but the transmission of authority from the apostles is very deliberately assured through prayer and the laying on of hands (v. 6). (6:8-7:1) Stephen on Trial The atmosphere of controversy which has been building up since ch. 4 now enters a new phase. Stephen's opponents are not the temple hierarchy but members of diaspora communities settled in Jerusalem (6:9). The Latin title libertini ('Freedmen') indicates a group of Jews of Italian origin who were now settled in Jerusalem: the term is known from Latin sources, cf. e.g. Tacitus, Annals, 2:85. Although the synagogue is essentially a diaspora institution
(7:9—16) Conflict in the Family Bypassing other episodes in the patriarchal narratives, Stephen moves on to the story of Joseph and Jacob's migration to Egypt, an episode that prepares the ground for the nation's exile in Egypt. This selection allows him to highlight the history of fraternal conflict within Israel, a conflict sparked by zclos (which here does mean 'envy': v. 9, cf. Philo, DC Josepho, 5). Joseph (like Daniel and Esther) was significant for diaspora Jews as a patriarch who, though forcibly separated from the land of promise, learns to live (and even flourish) in a pagan environment without compromising his faith: the key to Joseph's story is that even in Egypt, 'God was with him' (v. 9). For Christians, there is an additional typology: like Jesus, Joseph is rejected by his brothers, falls into 'afflictions', and is rescued by God (v. 10) in such a way that he in turn is able to save his people. For
(worship in Jerusalem was focused on the temple), rabbinic
1037 ACTS
law to pass on to the ekklesia ('congregation') of God's people
the number 75 (v. 14), cf. Gen 46:27, where LXX and some Qumran traditions read 75. v. 15 is a highly compressed form of the Genesis account of Jacob's visits to Egypt (Gen 45, 47, 49); and the burial place of Jacob (v. 16) is confused with that of Joseph (cf. Gen 23:16-20; 33:19; 50:13; Josh 24:32).
('to us', v. 38).
(7:39~43) Apostasy in the Wilderness At this point the syntactical focus shifts from Moses to 'our fathers', who become the subject of all the verbs in w. 39-41. These are verbs of disobedience and apostasy: the message could not be clearer that Stephen's problem lies not with Moses or his teachings
(7:17-22) The Birth of a Saviour Stephen now picks up the theme of promise (v. 17), identifying the key promise to Abraham (cf. Lki:73) as that of Gen 15:13—14, fulfilled in the Exodus
(6: n, 14) but with those who have consistently refused to obey them. The request for the golden calf (v. 40) is couched explicitly in terms that reflect the standard biblical denunciation of pagan idolatry (v. 41: Ps 97:7; Isa 48:5; Ps 135:15; Ps 115:4). Stephen uses an extensive quotation from Am 5:25—7 to reinforce his point: the rhetorical question of the opening is interpreted here as evidence that Israel's apostasy can be traced back to the wilderness period.
(Ex 2:24; 3:12) rather than in the Conquest (which is of only passing interest to Stephen, cf. 7:45). The exposure of newborn infants (v. 22) was routine in the Gentile world—though in that context it would be more normal to expose the females and rear the males (cf. Philo, Vit. Mas. i.io). It was at this precise moment of crisis and potential disaster that Moses was born (v. 20). 'Beautiful' (asteios) echoes LXX Ex 2:2, and is highlighted here by the addition of 'before God': cf. Philo's 'more than ordinary goodliness'. The child is 'picked up' by Pharoah's daughter (the technical term used for acknowledging a newborn child and agreeing to rear it). As in Philo, Moses' education in the palace is seen in terms of gaining (and excelling in) the best that the pagan world could offer (cf. Philo, Vit. Mas. 1.20-4).
The passage from Amos is a notorious crux in the Hebrew, and Luke is drawing here on a long tradition of exegetical reflection. In v. 43 Luke follows LXX, which vocalizes the Hebrew sikkut (Am 5:26: the name of an Assyrian god) as sukkat (tabernacle, 'tent', NRSV), and 'king' (melech) as Moloch. The Hebrew 'Kaiwan your star-god' becomes 'the star of your god Raiphan': there are several MS variants for the last name, whose origin is obscure. Luke's only real change to the Amos text is to substitute 'Babylon' for the original 'Damascus', conflating Amos's vision of exile under the Assyrian empire with the later and more paradigmatic experience of exile in Babylon.
(7:23-9) Moses Rejected Given this auspicious start in life, it is all the more ironic that Moses' first attempt to help his own people results in humiliation and rejection. Unlike the Exodus story (Ex 2:11—15), mis retelling presupposes that Moses himself already understands that it is his destiny to act as God's agent of'salvation' for his people (sotlria, v. 25: NRSV, rescuing), and that the people themselves should have recognized the fact. Neither Philo nor Josephus makes this particular point out of this episode: Josephus ignores it, and Philo mentions it simply as a 'righteous act' on the part of Moses that incurs the wrath of the king and puts Moses' life in danger (Vit. Mas. 1.40—6). It is a peculiarly Christian typology, and one well adapted to the dramatic scenario of Stephen's speech, which understands Moses as the prototype of Jesus, sent by God as saviour of his people but rejected by those he came to save.
(7:44-53) Tabernacle and Temple It can hardly be a coincidence that Stephen moves directly from the 'tent of Moloch' to the 'tent of testimony', i.e. the tabernacle, though the logic of the transition is not entirely clear. Stephen's point seems to be that the wilderness tabernacle, which Moses made in obedience to the 'pattern' given by God (v. 44), was closer to God's will than King Solomon's temple, despite the fact that David had sought God's leave to build the temple (v. 46; cf. 2 Sam 7:1-16). It is of course Solomon himself who recognizes the futility of trying to build a house for God (v. 48; cf. i Kings 8:27): Stephen is exploiting an ambivalence about the temple that may be particularly felt in diaspora circles, but is already deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, as the following quotation from Isa 66:1—2 shows (w. 9—50). 'Stiff-necked' (v. 51) takes us back to the wilderness generation: cf. Ex 33:3. The charge of'resisting the Holy Spirit' that forms Stephen's peroration (v. 51) is also based on Scripture, cf. Isa 63:10: from here it is a logical step to the charge of persecuting the prophets who are inspired by the Spirit (v. 52; cf. Heb 11:32-8). This was a widespread tradition in early Judaism (cf. Fitzmyer 1998: 385), particularly highlighted by Luke (e.g. Lk 13:34); here it is linked implicitly with Moses' prophecy (v. 37), and explicitly with the chief role of the prophets for Christians, that of predicting the Messiah. Stephen's speech thus ends up with the same accusation as Peter's (v. 52); the long history of apostasy and rebellion is simply a way of identifying the scriptural patterns that underlie the crisis of rejection in the present generation.
(7:30—8) Moses Selected Moses' rejection by his own people is placed in stark juxtaposition with his call by God. w. 30-4 extract the key statements from the much longer narrative of Ex 3, 4. The assimilation of Horeb and Sinai (cf. v. 30 with Ex 3:1) was well established by Luke's day: the 'mountain of God' (Ex 3:1 was pre-eminently Sinai, and it is clearly Sinai to which Ex 3:12 refers. As with Abraham, this is a moment of angelic vision (v. 30) and divine voice (v. 31): Moses' contribution is limited to amazement (v. 31) and trembling (v. 33). Deliverance, too, is all God's work: T have seen... I have heard... I have come down to deliver... I will send' (v. 34). But it is 'this Moses' (v. 35), the rejected one, who is chosen by God as the privileged recipient of the divine vision, and the one whom God sends as both 'ruler and deliverer'. The paradox recalls Peter's words at 2:13,4:10, and it is underlined by the repeated houtos ('this one') in w. 36-8. Like Peter
(3:22), Stephen picks out Moses' prediction of the prophet (Deut 18:15 LXX) as a prediction of Christ (v. 37): the typology will be made more explicit in v. 52. And it was this same Moses who received the 'living oracles' of the
(7:54-60) Stephen's Death Audience reactions to this speech are described in highly dramatic tones (v. 54), heightened even further by the description of Stephen's vision (w. 55-6). Ste-
ACTS 1038
phen's vision of the glory of God highlights his continuity with Abraham (7:2) and Moses (cf Ex 33:18—23); but now the open heaven (v. 56) also contains the figure of Jesus himself. Jesus' position 'at the right hand of God' (v. 55) denotes the highest place ofhonour: the vision fully confirms Stephen's claim that the rejected saviour is in fact God's 'Righteous One'. Many different explanations of the fact that the Son of Man is 'standing' have been suggested (cf. Fitzmyer 1998: 392-3 and Johnson 1992:139). Despite the differing circumstances, there are a number of literary parallels with Luke's description of the death of Jesus. Stephen commits his spirit to God and cries out 'in a loud voice' (w. 59-60; cf. Lk 23:46). The prayer for forgiveness (v. 60) echoes in thought the prayer of Lk 23:34 (omitted in some MSS), though the wording is entirely different. The most dramatic difference is that when Stephen, the prototype for Christian martyrdom, dies 'calling on the name of the Lord' (v. 59), it is the exalted Jesus whom he expects to receive his spirit.
suggests an obvious source from which Luke (directly or indirectly) could have obtained this story. 'Samaria' (v. 5) may be either the region (as in RSV) or the name of its capital city (as in NRSV), which was rebuilt under Herod the Great. Philip's preaching is presented as a highly successful piece of evangelism, accompanied by miraculous healings which impress the city's population (w. 6, 8). It is only in v. 9 that Luke reveals that Philip has a competitor in Samaria: Simon was used to commanding the same focused attention from the
Samaritans (w. 9,10). Simon's popular title (v. 10) may reflect local divine names. Justin Martyr (possibly drawing on local knowledge) identifies him as a Samaritan magician, later honoured in Rome as a god (Justin, i Apol. 26; 56; Dial. 20.6). Luke, however, labels his activity as 'magic' (w. 9, n), always a pejorative term in Acts: the magician's powers may be real, but they fade into insignificance beside the powers ofthe gospel. The preaching ofthe word brings about not just a nine days' wonder, but belief and baptism, i.e. intellectual conviction and entry into a new community. The fact that the magician himself is impressed by Philip (v. 13) simply serves to highlight the gospel's power: there is nothing in this verse to suggest that Simon's conversion was any less real than those of his auditors.
Act Two: The Scattered Church: Samaria to Antioch
(8:1-12:25)
Act II Scene i: Samaria and Gaza (8:1-40)
Stephen's death is the trigger for a 'severe persecution' (8:1) which ushers in a new stage in the church's existence. From now on, the gospel is not confined to Jerusalem, but moves steadily outwards, carried by anonymous Christians (8:4). It will be increasingly hard for Luke to marshal the scattered pieces of information he has about the new foci ofthe church's life, and this central section reflects that difficulty: there is a less precise geographical structure here, and Luke seems to have few indications as to chronology. But this section forms a vital bridge between the stationary church of the Jerusalem narrative (chs. 1-7) and the evangelistic journeys ofthe Pauline mission (chs. 13—28). It also includes the two key moments of theophany around which the whole narrative spirals, Paul's conversion (ch. 9) and Peter's vision (chs. 10-11). (8:1-4) The Church Scattered Geographically, the new stage is focused around two poles. The apostles stay on in Jerusalem (w. i, 14); and Jerusalem remains a narrative focus through to ch. 12. But the rest ofthe church is 'scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria' (v. i). We are moving on to the middle stage ofthe apostolic commission in 1:8, but it is not just the apostles who do the preaching: unnamed disciples exploit their 'scattered' condition (v. 4) to spread the gospel. Interwoven with this story of expansion is the darker theme of persecution: Stephen is buried (v. 2), and Saul, slyly introduced as a bystander in 7:58, is painted in vivid and dramatic language as a zealous instigator of the persecution. How broad the persecution was (or how long it lasted) is not entirely clear. By 9:26 there is a group of 'disciples' back in Jerusalem alongside the apostles; it is possible that the community most affected was the one to which both Stephen and Saul belonged, the believers who belonged to synagogues of diaspora origin. (8:5-13) Philip's Mission in Samaria Philip is not an apostle but one ofthe seven (6:5). We shall meet him again at 21:8, still characterized as 'the evangelist' but now settled in Caesarea with four daughters: the connection with a 'we-passage'
(8:14—25) The Coming ofthe Spirit: Samaria The enigmatic character of Simon Magus fascinated later Christians. Irenaeus identifies him as the founder ofthe 'Simonian' Gnostics (Adv. haer. 1.23). For Luke, however, the issue is notheresy but the illegitimate appropriation of divine power, and money
(as so often) is a symptom of a deeper corruption. Simon's request implies that he thought he could enter into some kind of contractual arrangement with the apostles that would enable him to confer the Spirit at will (w. 18—19). But the Spirit is God's gift (v. 20), and cannot be bought for cash. The sin of 'simony' (defined as 'the purchase and sale of spiritual things': ODCC s.v.) takes its name from this story.
The story also highlights two related issues of church order, (i) The role ofthe apostles. Luke's structuring of this episode implies a supervisory role for the Jerusalem church, concerned to keep an eye on new developments. The fact that Samaria has received God's word merits an apostolic visitation (v. 14). Luke is able to assure his readers that each significant new step in the expansion ofthe gospel has been tested and approved by the apostles. (2) Baptism and the
Spirit. The sequence of events in this episode seems to imply (a) that baptism in the name of Jesus (v. 12) and the reception ofthe Spirit (v. 15) were two distinct events for the Samaritans and (b) that the latter could not happen without the laying on of hands by the apostles (v. 17). The passage has therefore been used in some churches to justify the practice of confirmation as a separate rite from baptism, and in others to argue that a distinct experience ofthe Spirit is necessary as a supplement to baptism. The problem with both these arguments is that although the sequence is clear in this passage, it is by no means universal, even in Acts (let alone in the rest of the NT): elsewhere the Spirit is bestowed before baptism (e.g. 10:44-8), or is not recorded at all (e.g. 8:38). Luke was not writing Acts as a manual of church discipline and is manifestly unconcerned to define the exact order in which the four elements involved in conversion occur (see above on 2:38).
1039 ACTS
briefly at 21:8), but his evangelistic activity en route provides some preparation for Peter's activities in the coastal areas in 9:32-43.
The crucial point here in terms of plot is that the apostles' visit brings about a Samaritan Pentecost which demonstrates conclusively that this new step in the mission of the church has received the seal of the Spirit. The apostles, far from being against this development, are actively promoting it by conducting further evangelistic activity in Samaritan territory
Act II Scene 2: Damascus (9:1-31)
The scene now shifts to back to Jerusalem. The apparently minor character of Saul (7:58; 8:1—3) undergoes a dramatic conversion from persecutor to preacher. This episode, retold twice in Acts (22:4-21; 26:9-18), is one ofthe most important episodes in the drama, both in its own right and because it introduces and legitimates the man who is to become the central character ofthe second half of Acts.
(v. 5)-
(8:26—40) Philip and the Ethiopian Philip has another significant evangelistic task to perform before he disappears from the stage again. This episode shows Philip to be open and obedient to divine guidance. Luke shows little interest in ontological questions about spiritual phenomena: both angel (v. 26) and Spirit (w. 29, 39) originate in God, and their effect on the observer is hard to distinguish (cf 23:8—9). Luke's geography, however, is more exact than many commentators have given him credit for: Philip's route due south from
(9:1-9) On the Damascus Road The term 'conversion' is anachronistic and misleading if we think of it in terms of a change from one religion to another. Christianity was not at this stage a distinct religion in the modern sense but a sect within Second Temple Judaism, promoting one among a number of contested Jewish identities (ACTS 24:14). It is a 'conversion' in the strict biblical sense, that is a complete change of direction; Luke's use ofthe term 'the Way' (v. 2; cf. v. 17, 'on the road [= way]') plays up this aspect ofthe story. Paul himself refers to his experience both as a prophetic call (Gal 1:15) and as an experience ofthe risen Christ (Gal 1:16; i Cor 15:8), and there is a strong element of both these in Luke's account (though Luke does not use the experience to justify giving Paul the rank of apostle).
Samaria intersects at Eleutheropolis with the JerusalemGaza road (v. 26: epi means 'down to' or 'to meet'). Even the timing of this journey is miraculous: just at that moment (kai idou, lit. and behold, 27), Philip's path crosses the route of the Ethiopian pilgrim, heading west to strike the coast road towards Egypt.
What is the significance of this figure? Later tradition identified the eunuch as the first Gentile convert, and the founder of the Ethiopian church (Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. 2.1.13), but mis
does not seem quite to fit Luke's plot, with its elaborate buildup to the conversion of Cornelius in ch. 10. Luke lays more stress on the eunuch's links with Judaism: this is a man who has been to worship in the Jerusalem temple (v. 27) and is reading the prophet Isaiah (v. 28). Given the existence of a well-documented Jewish community at Elephantine (Aswan), Jewish influence south of Egypt is not implausible. Ancient readers would certainly imagine this character as an African: Ethiopia, in ancient geography, was the equivalent of Nubia, today's Sudan, rather than the modern Ethiopia. Readers who knew their Bibles might also pick up prophetic resonances, in which the Ethiopians (Heb. 'Cushites') figure among the most distant peoples from whom God will gather a remnant to worship in Jerusalem (e.g. Isa 11:11, Zeph 3:9-10).
The dramatic conversion of a persecutor or scoffer was a topos familiar both to Jewish and to Greek readers (cf. Dan i6; 2 Mace 3:13-40), and the vivid detail of Luke's story highlights the completeness ofthe reversal. Saul's threatening and purposeful journey (v. i) comes to an abrupt halt (v. 3); the heavenly light deprives him of sight (v. 8); the heavenly voice leaves Saul's retinue speechless (v. 7); the instigator of punitive action has to be 'told what to do' (v. 6) and 'led by the hand'
(v. 8). As in 2 Mace 3:28, it is a story of reversal which demonstrates clearly 'the sovereign power of God'. But what is particularly terrifying for Saul is that the voice that speaks from the midst ofthe theophanic light is the voice of'Jesus, whom you are persecuting' (v. 5)—confirmation that Stephen's vision (7:56) was not total delusion.
The detail Luke lavishes on this story foregrounds the vital importance the early Christians attached to the correct interpretation of scripture (w. 30—1): this was an integral part ofthe apostolic witness (Lk 24:44-9). The eunuch's question (v. 34) is still debated by OTscholars. As so often, a genuine difficulty within the Hebrew text provides a hook for Christological exegesis; but the real value of this passage for Christians lay in providing prophetic warrant for the ignominious death that Jesus had in fact suffered (Lindars 1961: 77-88). According to the Western text, Philip asks for and receives a declaration of faith before proceeding with the baptism, and the eunuch then receives the Spirit; Luke, as noted above, seems distressingly unconcerned to establish uniform practice in the apostolic period, and this reading looks like an attempt to iron out anomalies. The scene ends as abruptly as it began (v. 39): unlike the Cornelius episode, it is pure encounter, with no ongoing implications for the church. When the travellers reach the coast road, the Ethiopian turns south towards Gaza, while Philip (v. 40) turns north towards Azotus; as a character, he is now tidied away to Caesarea (to reappear
(9:10—190) Ananias's Vision Saul's story (like Cornelius': Barrett 1994-9: i. 453) is in fact the story of two visions, each confirming the other. We are told nothing of Ananias's past history, or of how he came to be a disciple (v. 10), but v. 13 implies that he was a Damascus resident. Ananias is given precise directions as to Saul's address (v. n: the 'street called Straight' is still shown in the Old City of Damascus). Like many OTcharacters (e.g. Moses in Ex 3:11—4:17), Ananias does not hesitate to argue with 'the Lord'. The effect of his reluctance is to highlight the dramatic change between Saul's terrifying reputation and his present chastened state ('he is praying', v. n). It also elicits a divine commission which highlights (in distinctly Pauline language) the contrast between
Saul's sorry past and God's elective grace (v. 15: cf. i Cor 15:910; Rom 9:23). Saul's future career is prophetically outlined in w. 15—16, which may be taken as a supplementary narrative plan to 1:8; precisely what this implies will be revealed as the narrative unfolds. Ananias's response, however reluctant, is
ACTS 1040
9:31 Summary and Transition A final summary verse signals a return to the main narrative thread. Luke reminds us that much is happening of which his narrative only gives us tantalizing glimpses. He has shown us scattered groups of'brothers' or 'disciples' (both men and women), and allowed us to see some of the individual encounters which they used, under the guidance of the Spirit, to spread their faith. But behind this diversity is a larger unity, something called 'the church'
generous (v. 17): laying-on of hands (here primarily for healing) is followed by baptism (v. 18). The gift of the Spirit (here at the hands of one who is not an apostle and has no known connection with Jerusalem) is implied (in intent, v. 17) but not stated—another instance of Luke's lack of concern for precise ritual patterns.
(9:19^-25) Saul in Damascus The dramatic effect of Saul's conversion is immediately apparent: in characteristic style, Luke records a reaction of universal amazement (v. 21). The relationship between Luke's narrative here and Paul's own account of his conversion in Gal i is contested. Paul does not mention anywhere that his call took place in Damascus, and does not mention an extended stay. According to Gal 1:17 he goes away immediately after his call to Arabia: but the fact that he then says T returned to Damascus' does seem to imply that the call took place there. The only other mention of Damascus in Paul's letters is at 2 Cor 11:32, where he describes being let down over the walls in a basket as an example of the humiliating position an apostle might find himself in. This must refer to the same episode (it could hardly have happened twice), but the details are different: in Paul's account, it is not 'the Jews' but the ethnarch (local commissioner) of Aretas who watches the gates to prevent his escape. Aretas was king of the Arabian kingdom of Nabatea, and since there are only a few years when he could have had any kind of judicial authority in Damascus, this dates the episode to 37-9 CE. Given Luke's general interest in local rulers (cf Lk 3:1-2), it seems unlikely that he would have omitted this detail had he known 2 Corinthians; he must have had independent access to this piece of Pauline tradition, but has heard (or reconstructs) the details rather differently.
(in the singular) which is growing and 'being built up' throughout the region. Luke's focus on individuals has given us dramatic scenes of conversion and conflict, mostly in the cities: Jerusalem (chs. 1-7), Samaria (ch. 8), and Damascus (ch. 9), as well as one encounter on the desert road (ch. 8). What he does not describe, except in these brief summaries, is the steady consolidation that is going on behind the scenes and in the country regions: Samaria (cf. 8:25), Judea and Galilee, and (as we shall shortly be reminded), all along the coastal plain (cf. 8:40).
Act II Scene 3: Caesarea (9:32-11:18)
Saul, the future apostle to the Gentiles, has heard the call of God, but remains in the wings until Luke is ready to bring him back centre-stage. Before that happens, the mission to the Gentiles (only hinted at in 1:8 and 9:15) must be more fully prepared for through an extraordinary sequence of visions and encounters in Caesarea. Luke makes it quite clear that this crucial development in the history of the church comes about in response to God's initiative; and it is not Paul but Peter, the central figure ofthe apostolic team in Jerusalem, who is given the responsibility of grasping the vision (told three times over, like that of Paul) and passing it on to the church.
9:32—5 Peter and Aeneas The summary of v. 31 has swung the narrative back to the centre, and we now return to the Jerusalem church and to Peter as its chief figurehead. Going 'here and there among the believers' (v. 32) suggests one of the mechanisms by which the church was 'built up' (v. 31): it implies that Peter has some kind of pastoral oversight over the whole church ('all'), which by now includes believers in the towns ofthe coastal plain. How these communities may have been founded is suggested at 8:40: Lydda is the modern Lod, and Sharon is the region of Sarona, northwards along the coast towards Caesarea. These two brief miracle stories remind the reader of Peter's power as a healer. There are strong echoes here ofthe healing miracles of Jesus, though Luke is careful to stress that Peter heals in Jesus' name, not his own (v. 34). A characteristically Lukan 'all' (v. 35) underlines the evangelistic force of these miracles.
(9:26-30) Saul Returns to Jerusalem A more serious difficulty arises with Luke's account of Paul's return to Jerusalem. Compared with Paul's own account in Gal i, Luke appears to imply a shorter interval before Paul's first Jerusalem visit (v. igfc), a longer stay in Jerusalem, and a meeting with more than one apostle (v. 27). Though Luke's chronology is notoriously vague, it is hard to reconcile the timing of these two accounts: Barrett's (1994-9: i. 462) conclusion is that 'Luke is correct in saying that Paul travelled from Damascus to Jerusalem, wrong in his dating of the event'. But in other respects the two accounts can be read as different perspectives on the
same event: nothing in the Acts account suggests that Paul stayed a long time in Jerusalem, or had many meetings with the apostles, or (the point Paul himself is most keen to deny) that he had extensive instruction in the gospel from the Jerusalem church. Luke in fact highlights the suspicion with which the former persecutor was received by the Jerusalem church (w. 26—7), and, like Paul, stresses the relative independence of Paul's gospel from apostolic control. So this short summary passage brings the narrative circle back to its point of departure in ch. 6: Saul, the zealous young man who approved of the killing of Stephen, comes back to Jerusalem to finish the argument with the Hellenists that Stephen had started, and arouses the same violent response. The 'brothers', it is implied, are in no way in control of this situation, but recognize its potential danger: Saul is packed off hurriedly to his home town of Tarsus (v. 30; cf. Gal 1:21), still unknown by sight to most members of the Judean churches (Gal 1:22).
9:36-43 The Healing of Tabitha The fledgling community at the port of Joppa (Jaffa) comes across with a little more detail: it includes both men and women, and Luke uses the unusual term mathetria for a woman disciple (outside the church, women would not often be characterized as 'students'). Tabitha (Gk. 'Dorcas': both names mean 'gazelle') has developed a charitable ministry among the women ofthe town, especially (v. 39) the widows who, in a system with no social security, could find themselves in severe financial straits. Tabitha's clothing club is a prototype for the extensive practical aid programmes that grew up in the later churches. The 'upper room' (v. 39) and Peter's prayer (v. 40) recall healings of
1041 ACTS
philosophical point that 'nothing is unclean in itself but assigns a more active role to God: the whole range of created food is clean not simply because God made it but because God has 'cleansed' it (v. 15). 10:17-230 Peter Summoned to Caesarea The significance of the vision is only unpacked slowly (though the reader, having had privileged access to Cornelius' vision, has clues that Peter does not). We are still with Peter up on the roof-top, puzzling over its meaning (10:17, I9)> when Cornelius' emissaries knock at the door downstairs. It takes a further direct intervention from the Spirit (v. 19) to make Peter go down to meet them: Peter now shares the readers' knowledge that these visitors have been sent by God (v. 20), but their connection with the vision is not yet explicit. Peter is instructed to go with them meden diakrinomenos (v. 20), an ambiguous verb whose double meaning is important for the story's development (Johnson 1992: 185): it can simply mean 'without hesitation' (so NRSV), but also carries the sense 'without making distinctions', 'without discrimination'. This sense is already implicit in Peter's action in inviting his guests in and making them welcome (v. 23). The messengers' description of Cornelius repeats (and therefore reinforces) much of what we as readers already know from the previous scene; the additional information that he is 'well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation' (cf. an earlier centurion in Lk 7:5) also underlines the fact that this is a Gentile.