Day: June 24, 2020

June 24: Luke 1:16-17, 76-77

June 24 is the traditional date commemorating the birth of John the Baptist—six months prior to the birth of Jesus, according to Luke 1:26. Just as the traditional date for the Jesus’ birth corresponds generally to the winter solstice, so John’s birth corresponds to the summer. This synchronicity symbolizes the relationship between John and Jesus in the Gospel and early Christian tradition. There are a number of ways this relationship might be studied, ranging from the historical to the theological-christological; I will be looking at it here, over several daily notes, according to one aspect, centered around the figure of Elijah.

With regard to John’s birth, apart from a generic (and proverbial) reference in Matt 11:11 / Lk 7:28, it is treated only in the Lukan Infancy narratives (Lk 1) and there in significant detail. In fact, within Lk 1-2, the births of Jesus and John are presented as parallel and overlapping (or intercut) narratives (sometimes referred to as a narrative “diptych”); the parallelism is clear and striking—each contains:

    • An angelic appearance (by Gabriel) announcing the child’s birth—with a prophecy/declaration of the child’s future—to one of the parents (Zechariah/Mary), patterned after similar Old Testament annunciations (Lk 1:8-23, 26-38)
    • A short narrative with an utterance by Elizabeth (Lk 1:24-25, 39-45)
    • A canticle by one of the parents (Mary/Zechariah), of a similar character and style drawing heavily upon Old Testament imagery (Lk 1:46-55, 67-79)
    • A narrative of the birth of the child, involving the reaction by people nearby (Lk 1:57-66; 2:1-20)
    • A notice of the naming and circumcision of the child (Lk 1:59-60; 2:21)
    • A statement regarding the child’s growth and development, patterned after the Samuel narrative in the OT (Lk 1:80; 2:40, 52)

This prominence is offset by the fact that, upon the start of Jesus’ ministry, John disappears more completely from Luke than in the other Gospels—Luke has eliminated the flashback narrative of John’s arrest and execution (Mk 6:14-29 and Matt par), and, more significantly, reduced the narrative of Jesus’ baptism (Lk 3:21-22), removing any specific mention of John’s role. Perhaps there is implicit here what is made explicit in Jn 3:30.

There are two passages in the Infancy narratives which are prophetic of John’s relationship to Jesus—one in the angel’s announcement to Zechariah (Lk 1:16-17) and one in the canticle of Zechariah (Lk 1:76-77)—both involve the motif of John as Elijah (or a prophet like Elijah).

Luke 1:16-17

The prediction or prophecy by the heavenly Messenger (Gabriel) begins in verse 14, extending through verse 17. There are actually two separate predictions: (1) in vv. 14-16 and (2) in v. 17. For the first prediction, the points mentioned are—

    • You (Zechariah) will have joy and leaping (for joy), v. 14a
    • Many will rejoice upon the child’s birth, v. 14b
    • The child will be great (me/ga$) in the eyes/sight of the Lord, v. 15a
      (note the similar statement regarding Jesus in Lk 1:32, “he will be great [me/ga$]”, and cf. Lk 7:28)
    • He will not [i.e. is not to] drink wine or beer/liquor, v. 15b—presumably as a ‘Nazirite’, like Samuel and Samson, two figures for whom there also were heavenly birth announcements (cf. Judg 13:4-5)
    • He will be filled with the holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, v. 15c—perhaps echoing similar phrasing of Samson as a ‘Nazirite’ from his mother’s womb (Judg 13:7; 16:17)
    • He will turn many of the sons of Israel back to [lit. e)pi/ upon] the Lord their God, v. 16

Verse 16 is a clear reference to John’s role as a prophet—one whose preaching and proclamation (often warning of impending judgment) sought to bring about repentance and a return to faithfulness among the people. In this regard, the prophet himself was often understood as having an eschatological role or status (cf. for example, Hos 3:5). This, in turn, points toward the association of John with the messenger of Malachi 3-4, which is specified clearly in verse 17:

“And he will go before in His [i.e. the Lord’s] eyes/sight in (the) spirit and power of Eliyyah [i.e. Elijah], to turn the hearts of (the) fathers (back) upon (their) offspring, and (the) unpersuaded [i.e. unbelieving/disobedient] in [i.e. unto] (the) thoughtfulness of (the) just/righteous (ones), to make ready for the Lord a people packed down fully [i.e. properly equipped, prepared].”

Note the specific phrases:

    • He will “go before” the Lord, as the Messenger in Mal 3:1 “looks over (and prepares) the way before” the Lord. The Greek expressions [pro] e)nw/pion (in Lk 1:17) and pro prosw/pou (Mal 3:1), though slightly different, have generally the same meaning (“before the face/sight of”). This may also be reflected in the earlier v. 15a.
    • “(the) spirit and power of Elijah”—the identification of the prophet/messenger with “Elijah”, as in Mal 4:5 [3:23 Hebrew].
    • “turn the hearts of (the) fathers (back) upon (their) offspring”—this same idea is expressed in Mal 4:6 [3:24 Hebr], though with slightly different language. Again this would seem to be reflected in the earlier v. 15 (use of the same verb e)pistre/fw “turn back upon”, i.e. “return”).
    • “make ready for the Lord a people ‘prepared’ [kataskeuasme/non]”—that this is taken from Mal 3:1 is confirmed by the citation in Lk 7:27, where we see the same verb kataskeu/azw (lit. “pack down [fully]”, but in conventional English something like “prepare/equip properly”). For the phrase “make ready (e(toima/zw) a people”, cf. 2 Sam 7:24 [LXX 2 Kingdoms 7:24]; Sir 49:12.

The author of the Gospel (trad. Luke) may also have been familiar with Sirach 48:10, which cites Mal 4:6 in an eschatological context. For more on the Messianic interpretation of Mal 3:1ff, cf. Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, along with a supplementary study on the subject.

Luke 1:76-77

These verses represent a strophe in the hymn or canticle of Zechariah (the Benedictus, Lk 1:67-79). Verses 67-75 extol the faithfulness and power of God in dealing with his people—his mercy and mighty works—much as we see in the parallel canticle of Mary (the Magnificat, Lk 1:46-55). Verses 76-77, however, are addressed (prophetically) to John:

“But also you, (little) child—you will be called Foreteller [i.e. Prophet] of the Highest,
for you will pass/travel before in the eyes/sight of the Lord to make ready His ways,
to give knowledge of salvation to His people in [i.e. by] the release [i.e. forgiveness] of their sins”

Again we see here a citation from Mal 3:1 (cf. also Isa 40:3), which was, in Gospel tradition, generally understood as applying to John the Baptist (as will be discussed in the next day’s note). It is worth noticing the Jesus/John parallelism in the titles used:

    • John: “he will be great in the eyes/sight of the Lord” (e&stai me/ga$ e)nw/pion [tou=] kuri/ou), Lk 1:15
      Jesus: “he will be great” (e&stai me/ga$), Lk 1:32
    • John: “(you) will be called prophet of the Highest” (profh/th$ u(yi/stou klhqh/sh|), Lk 1:76
      Jesus: “(he) will be called son of the Highest” (ui(o\$ u(yi/stou klhqh/setai), Lk 1:32

This raises the somewhat difficult question of the meaning of ku/rio$ (“Lord”) when passages such as Mal 3:1 are applied to John—is the “Lord” Yahweh or Jesus? Presumably, in Lk 1:15-17, 76 it is God the Father (Yahweh) that is meant, in keeping with the Old Testament usage, as well as the literary context. However, Luke, like nearly all early Christians, would also understand “Lord” immediately has a title for Jesus, and this is certainly implicit here as well (involving literary foreshadowing). That there was some interpretive confusion is indicated by the textual variants which cropped up occasionally in such passages. It is safest to assume that Luke primarily intends to depict John as a Prophet who goes before the Lord (YHWH), in fulfillment of Old Testament tradition; but secondarily these verses are prophetic of John as the forerunner of the Lord (Jesus). This secondary meaning is hinted at in the evocative, though somewhat ambiguous, language of the strophe which closes the Benedictus (vv. 78-79):

“…through the (inner) organs of (the) mercy of our God,
in which a rising [a)natolh] out of (the) height has looked upon us,
to shine (forth) upon the (one)s sitting in darkness and (the) shadow of death,
to straighten down our feet into (the) way of peace.”

Here the mercy of God, depicted in vv. 67-75, culminates in a “rising up” (probably best understood as a rising sun/light), drawing from key Old Testament passages such as Psalm 107:9-10; Isa 9:1; 42:6-7; 60:1; Mal 4:2 [3:20 Hebr]; cf. also Num 24:17 (and later passages such as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Zebulun 8:2; Levi 4:4; 18:3; Judah 24:1).

Images with Jesus and John the Baptist together as infants represented a popular theme in Renaissance painting, etc, part of a rich corpus of devotional, Marian art (such as in the Madonna d’Alba by Raphael [on right, and also used in the header above]). The Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke proved to be a prime source of thematic material for Western/Catholic artists in the Medieval and Renaissance periods (much more so than for the Eastern/Orthodox traditions); these included, especially—the Annunciation to Mary, the Nativity, the Adoration of the Magi, the journey of the Holy Family, and the boy Jesus in the Temple, as well as scenes from extra-canonical tradition (Infancy Gospels and Marian legends).

John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Scrolls

With the discovery and eventual publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly those from Qumran), scholars and commentators were eager to note any possible parallels with the New Testament and early Christianity. A wealth of theories sprung up, some less plausible than others, including attempts to connect Jesus of Nazareth with the Scrolls in various ways. One theory which continues to have some measure of popularity (and acceptance) today among New Testament scholars involves a possible connection or association between John the Baptist and the Qumran Community. Before proceeding, it will be helpful to define and explain what is meant by the expression “Qumran Community”. In terms of the site of Khirbet Qumrân, and scrolls found in the vicinity, we can identify three groups, which may (or may not) be identical:

    • Those who copied, used, and/or hid away the scrolls in the Qumran caves, assuming that they represent a coherent group
    • Those who resided on the hilltop site of Khirbet Qumran
    • A community whose organization, and history, etc, is described in the scrolls themselves

With regard to the last point, most scholars believe that there was an actual group, or community, in existence during the period c. 150 B.C. – 70 A.D. (the time-frame of the scrolls), which sought to organize and conduct itself according to the ideals, principles, regulations, etc, outlined in a number of key texts—most notably the “Community Rule” (1QS and other copies), the related rule-texts 1QSa and 1QSb, and the “Damascus Document” (CD/QD). It is important to emphasize this, since there is virtually no definite external evidence for this group’s existence. However, their existence would seem to be confirmed by the evidence within the scrolls themselves; I would point to several pieces of evidence in particular:

    • The numerous copies of the “community rule” texts, produced over a significant length of time (to judge by the surviving versions/recensions)—this indicates a functioning, well-established community which required these authoritative texts and rule-books for repeated use. The same may be said for the corpus of the Qumran texts as a whole—the many Scripture copies, liturgical texts, and so forth, presumably served the needs of a specific (religious) community.
    • Many of the Qumran texts evince a decided sectarian viewpoint and orientation, which is almost impossible to explain without an existing group (or groups) to read/write/copy these texts. While the views within the scrolls are not always consistent in detail, there are enough features in common, within a variety of texts written/copied over a period of decades, to confirm the existence of a distinctive group or community of adherents.
    • The history of a definite community would seem to be preserved within a number of different texts, including liturgical works, hymns, commentaries on Scripture, and other writings. Most notable is the so-called “Damascus Document”, originally known from the copy discovered in Cairo (CD), but subsequently attested from a number of copies among the Qumran scrolls (QD). This text traces the history, self-identity, rules, etc, of a definite Community, though one which is probably not limited to the area around Qumran (and the scrolls). It is possible that the “Qumran Community”, as such, may represent an offshoot of a larger/earlier movement.

Most scholars would identity the Qumran Community with the Essenes, or as an offshoot of that movement. While this is far from certain (and, unfortunately, many treat it as an established fact), it remains the most likely hypothesis. As far as the site of Khirbet Qumran goes, the prevailing opinion is that the Qumran Community resided in that fortified structure, though not all scholars or archeologists agree. There is actually very little tangible evidence to support the connection, beyond the proximity of the scroll deposits to the site.

John the Baptist

What, then, may we say about the idea that John the Baptist may have been connected in some way with the Qumran Community? There is some plausible evidence which could support the theory that John spent time in contact with the Community. I offer here some points for consideration (for another useful summary, cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins [Eerdmans: 2000], pp. 18-21).

1. To begin with, it must be noted that, by all accounts, John’s ministry along the Jordan river included the desert regions around the Dead Sea not all that far from the site of Qumran. In terms of geographical proximity, it is certainly possible that John may have had some contact with members of the Community (assuming that they dwelt/resided at or near that site).

2. The centrality and importance of Isa 40:3 for both John the Baptist (Mark 1:3 par) and the Community of the Qumran texts (cf. the Community Rule [1QS] 8:12-16) has led to the suggestion that John may have been associated at some time with the Qumran Community. According to Jn 1:22-23, the identification of John with the herald of Isa 40:3, comes from his own lips; it is likely that the wider Gospel tradition to this is also derived from John’s own ministry, rather than a reflection of subsequent early Christian belief about John. The importance of Isa 40:3 would seem to be the basis for John residing in the desert, just as it clearly was for the Qumran Community:

“And when these have become a community in Israel… they are to be separated from the men of sin, to walk to the desert in order to open there His path, as it is written: ‘In the desert prepare the way of [YHWH], straighten in the steppe a roadway for our God’. This is the study of the Law which He commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age…” (1QS 8:12-15)

Admittedly, the reasons for going into the desert are somewhat different, but they share at least two important features in common: (1) an ascetic-religious emphasis on separation from sin (holiness and repentance, etc), and (2) a religious self-identity with a strong eschatological (and Messianic) orientation (for more on this, cf. point 5 below).

3. John’s family circumstances (as recorded in the Gospel of Luke) would fit the idea of his becoming involved with the Qumran community; note the following:

    • According to Luke 1:5ff, John was born into the priestly line, but (apparently) never served officially as a priest. Many of the leading figures of the Qumran community were priests opposed to the current religious (Temple) establishment in Jerusalem. One detects in the Gospel tradition, at the very least, a measure of tension between John and the religious establishment (Jn 1:19-27; Matt 3:7-10 par) as well.
    • John’s parents were quite old when he was born (Lk 1:7, 18, 25, 36f, 58), and likely would have died while he was still young; a child orphaned from priestly parents would have made a strong candidate for adoption by the Qumran community, as Josephus states was occasionally done by the Essenes (Jewish War II.120).
    • Moreover, as a serious, religious-minded youth, John may well have been attracted to the Qumran community, even as Josephus was drawn to the Essenes as a young man (Life §10-11).

4. The Qumran community practiced ritual washings, which symbolized cleansing/purification from sin and entry/participation in the community (cf. 1QS 3:3ff; 5:13-14). As such, it provides a distinct parallel with early Christian baptism, which is related in turn to the earlier baptism practiced by John. There is also an interesting juxtaposition of cleansing by water and the Holy Spirit (and fire) in 1QS 4:20-21, as we see expressed by John in Matt 3:11 / Lk 3:16.

5. As noted above, the religious self-identity, of both John and the Qumran Community, had a strong eschatological (and Messianic) orientation. In the case of John, this is absolutely clear, though Christians are not always accustomed to thinking about his ministry this way; note the following:

    • the use of Isa 40:3, in tandem with Mal 3:1ff (Mk 1:2-3 par; Matt 11:10 par; Jn 1:23), the latter being a passage which came to have a definite eschatological emphasis for Jews and early Christians (cf. my earlier study on this)
    • in particular, John was identified as the “Elijah” who would appear at the end-time (Mal 4:5-6; cf. Mk 1:5-6; 6:15; 9:11-13 pars; Matt 11:14; Lk 1:17, 76; but cp. John’s own denial of this in Jn 1:21)
    • John’s preaching involved a proclamation of the coming (end-time) Judgment of God (Matt 3:7-10, 12 par), with repentance as a precursor (and warning) to the Judgment (see esp. Lk 1:17, 76-77)
    • this aspect of John’s ministry was distinctive enough to make people question whether he might be the “Anointed One” (Messiah), esp. in the sense of being the end-time Prophet (or “Elijah”)—Lk 3:15ff; Jn 1:19-27
    • his references to “the one coming” (Mk 1:7 par; Lk 3:16 & 7:18ff par; Jn 1:27, cf. also vv. 15, 30) almost certainly relate to a Messianic interpretation of Mal 3:1ff, as I have discussed in detail elsewhere

With regard to the eschatological and Messianic belief of the Qumran Community, its is far too large a subject to address here; I discuss it in considerable detail all throughout the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. However, I would note one interesting parallel, in terms of Messianic expression, between the writings associated with the Qumran Community and John’s preaching (according to the “Q” Gospel tradition). In the Damascus Document (CD 2:11-12) we read:

“And…he raised up…a remnant for the land…and he taught them by the hand of the Anointed One(s) with his holy Spirit and through…the truth”

If we combine this with the words of 1 QS 4:20-21:

“…the time appointed for the Judgment…Then God will refine, with his truth, all man’s deeds, and will purify…ripping out all spirit of injustice…and cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every wicked deed…”

we are not all that far removed from the language and imagery used by John, e.g., in Mark 1:8 par.

Thus we see that the theory of a connection between John and the Qumran Community, while quite speculative, is not entirely implausible, given the points in common and details noted above.

Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls here have been taken, with some modification and abridgment, from The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Eerdmans/Brill: 1997-8).

The Speeches of Acts, Part 8: Acts 5:34-40

Acts 5:34-40 represents the seventh speech in the book of Acts, and the first by a non-Apostle (Gamaliel). It functions in tandem with the speech of Peter in Acts 5:27-32—on this, along with an outline of the overall narrative structure in chapter 5, see the discussion in Part 7. Gamaliel (la@yl!m=G~, transliterated in Greek as Gamalih/l) the first (flourished c. 20-50 A.D.) was a known historical figure, a Rabbi (Teacher/Master, lit. “great one”) of the highest degree (Rabban, /B*r^, “Our Master”), grandson of the famous R. Hillel and grandfather of R. Gamaliel II. Here in Acts he is described as:

    • ti$ e)n tw=| sunedri/w|—someone [i.e. a certain member] in the “(place of) sitting together” (Sanhedrin, or council of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem)
    • Farisai=o$—a Pharisee
    • nomodida/skalo$—a Teacher of the (Old Testament / Jewish) Law
    • ti/mio$ panti\ tw=| law=|—honored by all the people

According to Acts 22:3, the young Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle) studied under Gamaliel.

Though it does not reflect apostolic preaching, Gamaliel’s speech, in many ways, still follows the basic sermon-speech pattern I have used in analyzing these speeches in the book of Acts:

    • Narrative Introduction (v. 34)
    • Introductory Address (v. 35)
    • Citation from History (vv. 36-37)—instead of a Scriptural citation, two examples taken from recent/contemporary (Jewish) history are cited
    • Concluding Exhortation (vv. 38-39), with an application to the current situation
    • Narrative Summary (vv. 39b-41)

Before proceeding, it may be useful to repeat the narrative transition of verse 33, which describes the reaction to Peter’s speech (in vv. 27-32) and joins it to the speech of Gamaliel:

“And (at this) the (one)s hearing were cut [lit. sawn] through and wished to take them up [i.e. do away with them, kill them]”

This reaction and response is similar to that following Stephen’s speech (cf. Acts 7:54ff), only here Gamaliel’s words restrain the crowd (of Jewish leaders) seeking the Apostles’ death.

Narrative Introduction (v. 34)—it is narrated how Gamaliel, “standing up” (a)nasta\$), intervened:

“…he urged [i.e. ordered] (them) to make the men [i.e. the apostles] (wait) outside a short (time)”

For the terms and expressions used to describe Gamaliel, see above.

Introductory Address (v. 35)—Gamaliel addresses the Council in a manner similar to that of Peter in Acts 2:22; 3:12 (cf. also 2:14, 29):  &Andre$,  )Israhli=tai… (“Men, Israelites…”); his address serves as a word of warning:

“have (care) toward yourselves upon [i.e. concerning] these men, how [lit. what] you are about to act!”
(or, in more conventional English)
“take care yourselves concerning what you are about to do to these men!”

Citation from History (vv. 36-37)—instead of a citation from Scripture (according to the sermon-speech pattern), Gamaliel offers two examples from recent/contemporary Jewish history—of Theudas and Judas the Galilean—men who had considerable (revolutionary) influence over the people, but whose success was short-lived and ended in failure. These verses contain two apparent (and apparently blatant) historical discrepancies:

    1. According to Josephus (Antiquities 20.97-98), Theudas was a Messianic-type ‘imposter’ who gathered a following during the period when C. Cuspius Fadus was procurator in Judea (44-46 A.D.). This would seem to have occurred later than the time of Gamaliel’s speech here in Acts (44 A.D. is the customary date given for the death of Herod Agrippa I, which does not take place until Acts 12:20-23).
    2. Judas the Galilean, an even more dangerous revolutionary, who incited rebellion during the time of the census (of Quirinius), according to both Acts and Jos. Ant. 20.102, War 2.118. By all accounts, this census took place in 6-7 A.D., clearly some time prior to Theudas’ movement, and yet Gamaliel here indicates that Judas appears after Theudas.

These apparent discrepancies, if proven to be so, would provide an extremely strong argument that the speech of Gamaliel, at least, is fundamentally a Lukan creation. However, traditional-conservative commentators (and other interpreters assuming, or eager to defend, a particular view of Scriptural inspiration and/or inerrancy), naturally enough, have sought explanations which preserve the historicity of the speech. It has been suggested that there was another (earlier) “Theudas” (with a similar career), perhaps during the reign of Herod the Great, but this is rather unlikely; Acts and Josephus almost certainly are referring to the same person. A simpler explanation is that Gamaliel is counting backward, from Theudas to the earlier Judas; however, the normal sense of the Greek expression meta\ tou=ton (“after this”) speaks decidedly against this, and in any event it would only partially solve the problem. It is also possible that Acts preserves here advice given by Gamaliel at a later date (subsequent to Theudas’ appearance), but again at least a partial discrepancy would remain. Another possibility is that Josephus is himself mistaken about the date of Theudas, but this too seems somewhat unlikely. None of the aforementioned solutions are especially convincing.

Historical questions aside, the point of these examples (Theudas and Judas) in Gamaliel’s speech is clear enough; note the parallels used to describe them:

    • they both “stood up” (a)ne/sth), that is, “rose up, appeared”
    • by this is implied that they suddenly achieved some measure of prominence—of Theudas is added the detail that he “counted himself to be some(one)”
    • they both gained a devoted following:
      Theudas—about four hundred men “were bent/inclined toward” [i.e. joined with] him
      Judas—he caused people to “stand away” [i.e. go away], following after him
    • they both perished—Theudas (“was taken up”, i.e. killed), Judas (“went away to ruin”, i.e. destroyed himself)
    • both groups of followers are specified as those who were persuaded/convinced by (e)pei/qonto, i.e. obeyed) the false leader—foolishly and in vain (implied by the context)
    • the followers of Theudas were “loosed/dissolved throughout” (i.e. dispersed) and “came to be nothing”; the followers of Judas were “all scattered throughout”

The comparison with Jesus and his followers is readily apparent.

Concluding Exhortation (vv. 38-39)—this is in the form of an injunction (or direction) urging his fellow leaders to:

    • “stand away from” [a)po/sthte, the same verb used in v. 37] the Apostles (“these men”)—that is, refrain from any further hostile action, and
    • “release” [a&fete] them—i.e. leave them alone for now

There is an interesting parallel to Peter’s response in Acts 4:19; 5:29, where the choice is between obeying God or obeying men. See how this is framed in vv. 38b-39a:

    • If (the word and work of the Apostles) is of men (e)c a)nqrw/pwn)
      • it will be loosed down (kataluqh/setai)—i.e. it will dissolve (by itself)
    • If (the word and work) is of God (e)k qeou=)
      • you will not have power [i.e. be able] to loose it down (katalu=sai)—i.e. you cannot dissolve/destroy it

A final warning is added—if the work of the Apostles is truly of God, and the Sanhedrin leaders try to resist it, Gamaliel cautions:

mh/pote kai\ qeoma/xoi eu(reqh=te

which has to be understood in light of the conditional sentence in vv. 38-39, but also in the context of the entire speech (beginning with the imperative prose/xete in v. 35); in other words—

“take care… that you do not even find (yourselves) fighting God!”

The noun qeoma/xo$ (theomáchos) literally means “one fighting with (or against) God”. It is a relatively rare word, appearing only here in the New Testament, and most notably at 2 Macc 7:19 in the LXX (the spirits/shades of the dead [? <ya!p*r=] are also translated by qeoma/xoi in Job 26:5; Prov 9:18; 21:16). Use of the related verb qeomaxe/w in Greek literature (admittedly rare, cf. several instances in Euripides) suggests opposition to the will and forward march of the deity.

Narrative Summary (vv. 39-40)—the summary begins with the conclusion of verse 39 (“and they were persuaded [e)pei/sqhsan] by him”, or “they obeyed him”, i.e. they accepted his advice). This repeats the key verb pei/qw, used previously (or in compounds) in vv. 29, 32, 36-37. A variant reading (in the Byzantine Majority text) adds mh\ qeomaxw=men (“let us not fight [against] God”); for this verb, and the related noun (used earlier in v. 39), see above. Verse 40 narrates in succession that the Jewish leaders of the Sanhedrin (a) called the apostles back in, (b) had them flogged (lit. “skinned”, i.e. struck so as to remove skin), and (c) directed them again not to speak “upon the name of Yeshua/Jesus” (as in 4:18). After this, the Sanhedrin “loosed” the Apostles from custody (i.e. released, set them free).

The narrative summary continues in verse 41; however, I regard vv. 41-42 more properly as the conclusion to the entire narrative section beginning with vv. 12ff (or at least vv. 17ff). Verse 41 mentions two actions of the apostles, that:

    • they traveled (out away) from the “face” of the Sanhedrin
      • rejoicing that they were (indeed) considered worthy to be dishonored [i.e. treated with dishonor]
        • over [i.e. for the sake of] the name (of Yeshua)
    • they did not cease… in the sacred place [i.e. Temple] and according to house [i.e. from house to house]
      • teaching and giving the good message of [i.e. announcing/proclaiming]
        • the Anointed (One) Yeshua

In many ways this is parallel to the narrative section in 4:23-31—the Apostles leave the Sanhedrin Council precincts and return to their own (fellow believers). The outline above indicates a pair of triads:

  1. Location—Sanhedrin council (where they face trial/suffering) vs. Temple and private houses (where they teach and worship)
  2. Regular Activity—rejoicing (over their suffering) vs. teaching and preaching (“the words of life”, cf. 4:20)
  3. Central Focus—the name of Jesus (the cause of their suffering) vs. Jesus the Christ (the content of their teaching/preaching)

The Speeches of Acts, Part 7: Acts 5:27-32

Acts 5:27-32 is the sixth speech in the book of Acts (by my reckoning), and the fifth given by Peter. A careful study of the speeches in the book to this point reveals something of the way the author incorporates them into the overall structure, central to each major narrative section. For an outline of how this functions in chapters 3-4, see parts 5 and 6 of this series. In Acts 3-4 there are three main (connected) narrative sections, each of which contains a speech (following a basic sermon-speech pattern); here in chapter 5, there are two speeches set side-by-side within an extended narrative:

    • Narrative Summary (5:12-16), which follows upon the narrative in 5:1-11, and emphasizes healing miracles performed by Peter and the Apostles.
    • Main narrative (5:17-26), centered on the Apostles’ miraculous release from prison, and divided into two parts:
      (1) vv. 17-21: The arrest of the Apostles (miracle)—who are told (by the Messenger) to go and  preach in the Temple
      (2) vv. 22-26: Officials go to the prison (result/reaction)—told (by a messenger) to go to the Temple, where the Apostles are preaching
    • Speech of Peter (5:27-32) before the Sanhedrin
    • Narrative transition (5:33)
    • Speech of Gamaliel (5:34-40) to the Sanhedrin
    • Narrative Conclusion (5:41-42)

There are some significant parallels to the narrative in chs. 3-4:

    • Context of healing miracle(s)—3:1-10; 5:12, 15-16
    • The Temple setting—3:1ff; 5:20-21, 25-26
    • The Apostles (including Peter) are taken into custody by the religious/temple authorities—4:1-3; 5:17-18
    • The Apostles appear before the religious leaders (the Sanhedrin) and are interrogated—4:5ff; 5:27ff
    • Question/Address by the High Priest—4:7; 5:28
    • Response/Speech by Peter—4:8-12; 5:29-32
    • Peter’s response esp. in 4:19-20; 5:29
    • The Apostles are released (4:21; 5:40) and rejoice/worship together (4:23ff; 5:41-42)

There is clearly a narrative pattern at work here; critical scholars debate the extent to which this matches historical reality (two separate, but similar incidents) or is a literary doublet (based on a single historical incident or tradition). It has even been suggested that the Sanhedrin setting is a literary construct, patterned after Jesus’ ‘trial’ in the Passion narratives, and added for dramatic effect. This would possibly be more likely here in chapter 5, where vv. 26, 33 suggest something of a mob scene, with the ‘Sanhedrin’ setting of vv. 27ff conceivably inserted by the author (cf. the similar setting around Stephen’s speech in chapter 7). There are also literary/narrative parallels between 5:17-21 and Peter’s miraculous (Angelic) release from prison in Acts 12:6-11.

Here is an outline of Peter’s speech in Acts 5:27-32:

    • Narrative Introduction (vv. 27-28), including a question/address by the High Priest (par. to 4:8).
    • Introductory Address (v. 29)
    • {Citation from Scripture} (vv. 30-31)—instead of a direct Scripture citation, there is a central kerygmatic statement, with an allusion to Deut 21:22-23 in v. 30b.
    • Concluding Exhortation (v. 32), with the conclusion of the kerygma and an application to the current situation.
    • {Narrative Summary}—v.33 is a narrative transition to the speech of Gamaliel in vv. 34ff.

Narrative Introduction (vv. 27-28)—this is parallel to Acts 4:5-7, but told in abbreviated form. Here they are simply brought before the “Sanhedrin” (sune/drion, “sitting together”), i.e. the council of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Again they are questioned/interrogated (e)perwta/w, the vb. punqa/nomai in 4:7) by the High Priest, who is not named (Annas and Caiaphas are listed among the Chief Priests who question the Apostles in 4:5-7). It is not clear that verse 28 is actually a question; many of the best manuscripts read:

“We gave along the message to you not to teach upon this name [i.e. of Jesus]…”

Some MSS include the negative particle ou) which would more properly make it a question: “Did we not give along the message to you…?”; however, the negative particle is probably a (scribal) addition to better fit the context of v. 27. The Greek paraggeli/a| parhggei/lamen—literally, “we gave along (as a) message a message given along”—highly redundant in English, reflects Hebrew syntax, with the duplication (using an infinitive absolute form) serving to intensify the main verb; i.e. in English, “we clearly/certainly gave you the message not to teach…!” The verb paragge/llw (parangéllœ, “give/pass along a message”) often has the meaning “pass on an order”, and so generally, “order, command, enjoin,” etc.

The High Priest’s address continues in dramatic fashion:

“…and see!—you have filled Yerushalaim (full) of your teaching, and you wish to bring upon us the blood of this man!”

The last statement is a bit harsh and troubling for those familiar with the Gospels (and sensitive to Jewish-Christian relations); it is a response to the accusation implicit in statements such as those of Peter in Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13-15; 4:10-11. We would be inclined to regard it as an exaggeration and distortion by the High Priest, however it matches words spoken by the Jewish crowd in at least one version of the Passion narrative (Matt 27:25). Christians today are extremely cautious about attributing to the “Jews” (in the ethnic-religious sense) responsibility for the death of Jesus. The situation was somewhat different in the early Church, where believers (primarily Jewish Christians) were often at odds (and in conflict) with their own countrymen (sometimes simply referred to as “the Judeans/Jews”).

Introductory Address (verse 29)—Peter (along with the [other] Apostles) respond with a declaratory statement:

“It is necessary (for us) to obey God more than [i.e. rather than] men”

The verb translated “obey” (peiqarxe/w) is somewhat difficult to render literally—it has the fundamental meaning “persuade [or be persuaded] by [i.e. submitting to] (that which is) chief [i.e. ruling]”, especially in the sense of submitting to the rule of law or government. One might render the statement as—

“It is necessary for us to submit to [or trust in] the rule of God rather than (the rule of) men”

or something similar. This declaration reiterates the words of Peter (and John) in 4:19-20:

 “If it is just in the eyes of God to hear [i.e. listen to] you more [i.e. rather] than God, you (be the) judge;
we are not able (but) to speak the (thing)s we have seen and heard”

They are responding to the directive (or threat) by the Jewish leaders in 4:17-18, which the High Priest makes reference to here in 5:27. The use of peiqarxe/w (a component of which is the verb pei/qw), introduces the theme of obedience (i.e. being persuaded by, obeying) which become prominent in vv. 32, 36-37, 39b.

Citation from Scripture (vv. 30-31)—instead of a Scripture citation, we have here a kerygmatic statement (with a Scriptural allusion, cf. below), elements of which can be found in the prior sermon-speeches of Acts:

“The God of our Fathers raised (up) Yeshua, whom you took thoroughly in hand [i.e. to kill], hanging (him) upon (a piece of) wood [i.e. tree]—this one [i.e. Jesus] God lifted high to his giving [i.e. right] hand (as) a leader and savior, to give a change of mind [i.e. repentance] to Yisrael and release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins”

    • o( qeo\$ tw=n pate/rwn (“the God of our Fathers”)—cf. 3:13, and (possibly) underlying the apparent corruption in 5:25a.
    • h&geiren  )Ihsou=n (“raised Yeshua/Jesus [from the dead]”)—cf. 3:15; 4:10; also 2:24, 32.
    • o^n u(mei=$ diexeiri/sasqe krema/sante$ e)pi\ cu/lou—the language is different here, but the same idea (that they took and crucified Jesus) is found in 2:23, 36; 4:10.
    • o( qeo\$ . . . u%ywsen th=| decia=| au)tou= (“God … lifted high to his right hand”)—cf. 2:33-34 (and note esp. 7:55-56).
    • a)rxh=gon kai\ swth=ra (“[as] a chief/leader and savior”)—cf. 3:15-16; 4:12; for a similar combination, see Hebrews 2:10.
    • dou=nai meta/noian . . . kai\ a&fesin a(martiw=n (“to give change of mind/understanding … and release of sins”)—cf. 2:38; also 3:19, 26.

Somewhat contrary to the (critical) view that the speeches of Acts are largely the product of the author (trad. Luke), such phrases and expressions almost certainly preserve pieces of early Gospel preaching and proclamation (kerygma). There are two distinctive details added here:

    1. The verb diaxeiri/zw—”handle throughout/thoroughly, take thoroughly in hand”, or “lay hands (forcefully) on”, that is, in order to “put to death, kill”; elsewhere in the New Testament it is used only in Acts 26:21.
    2. Instead of the verb stauro/w (“put to the stake”, i.e. crucify), we have the expression krema/sante$ e)pi\ cu/lou, “hanging (him) upon (a piece of) wood [i.e. tree]”. We find the same expression in Acts 10:39.

The description of crucifixion as “hanging upon a tree”, and the Greek wording in particular, are derived largely from Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (LXX). The original context is the regulation that a criminal hung to death on a tree not be left there overnight—otherwise the dead body of such a person (“cursed by God”) would defile the land. By the time of the New Testament, however, the expression came to be a euphemism for crucifixion—cf. the Qumran texts 4QpNah i 6-8 (alluding to those crucified by Alexander Jannaeus, cf. Jos. Ant. 13.379-80, War 1.93-98) and 11QTemple 64.7-12. Paul famously applies the same Old Testament reference to Jesus in Galatians 3:13.

Concluding Exhortation (v. 32)—properly the declaration in this verse serves to conclude the kerygma of vv. 30-31 and apply it to the current situation:

“And we are witnesses of these things (I have) uttered, and (also) the holy Spirit which God has given to the (ones) obeying him”

The theme of the Apostles as witnesses (esp. to Jesus’ resurrection) is an important one in Acts (cf. already in 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15), as is God’s sending/giving the Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8; 2:17-28, 33, 38; 4:31, and of course the Pentecost narrative of 2:1-4ff). An exhortation is embedded in the last words of the verse (“to the ones obeying him”)—the verb translated “obey(ing)” is the same used in verse 29 (peiqarxe/w, see above).

Narrative Summary (v. 33)—as indicated above, this verse serves as a narrative transition between the speeches of Peter and Gamaliel:

“And (at this) the (one)s hearing were cut [lit. sawn] through and wished to take them up [i.e. do away with them, kill them]”

The same verb diapri/w (“saw/cut through”) is used in Acts 7:54 for a similar reaction to Stephen’s speech; only we find a dramatic progression—here the crowd (i.e. the Jewish leaders) wants to kill Peter and the apostles but are kept from doing so, there they carry through and execute Stephen (7:58). Critical scholars have noted that both episodes seem to better fit a (public) mob scene than a private Sanhedrin session, leading to the theory that the setting of the Sanhedrin is a literary construct by the author (drawing upon the ‘trial’ of Jesus in the Gospels) added to heighten the dramatic effect. The argument is, I think, perhaps stronger in the case of Stephen’s speech, which I will be discussing in turn.

“…Spirit and Life”: John 17:3-4

John 17:2-3

Today’s note comes from the great prayer-discourse (chap. 17) which concludes the “Last Discourse” (for more on this passage, cf. the current “Prayer Notes” series). At the beginning of this section (vv. 2-3), we find the most precise definition of the expression “Life of the Age [zwh/ ai)w/nio$]” (i.e. eternal life) in the Gospel. It also happens to be one of the most “gnostic”-sounding statements in the New Testament; indeed, I discus this aspect of the passage at length in the series “Gnosis and the New Testament” (soon to be posted here. Here are verses 1b-2 in translation:

“Father, the hour has come—give honor to your Son (so) that your Son might give honor to you, even as you gave him authority [e)cousi/a] o(ver) all flesh, (so) that, (for) all (person)s, whom(ever) you have given to him, he should give to them (the) Life of the Age.”

This repeats the idea, expressed at numerous points in the earlier discourses, that the Father gives Life to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives Life to believers. For the background of the specific expression “Life of the Age”, cf. the earlier notes in this series, as well as the notes on Jn 11:20-27. Verse 2 also expresses the idea that believers (elect/chosen ones) have been given to the Son by the Father (vv. 6ff). The definition of “Life of the Age” comes in verse 3:

“And this is the Life of the Age: that they should know you, the only true God, and the (one) whom you se(n)t forth, Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

This formulation, specifically referring to “Yeshua the Anointed [i.e. Jesus Christ]”, sounds very much like an early Christian credal statement; and, in fact, many critical commentators view it as a product of the Gospel writer, rather than a self-referential statement by Jesus himself. It is certainly possible to view verse 3 as a parenthetical comment by the writer—indeed, one can read verse 4 directly after v. 2 without any real disruption or loss of meaning. However one views the composition of verse 3, the value and significance of it as a definition of “the Life of the Age” is clear—and it is defined in terms of knowledge:

    1. of the only true God (i.e., God the Father, YHWH):
      “they should know you, the only true God”
    2. of the one sent forth by God (Jesus–Yeshua the Anointed):
      “(they should know) the (one) whom you sent forth…”

In terms of obtaining this knowledge, and thus possessing (“holding”) eternal Life, the order has to be reversed (cf. 1:18; 14:6-11, etc):

    1. One sees/knows Jesus (the Son)—i.e. recognizes and trusts in him
    2. One sees/knows God the Father through the Son

The theological framework of the Gospel of John can be outlined in more detail:

Thus the emphasis on knowledge in 17:3 can be misleading, if we think of it in terms of ordinary human knowledge and perception. Rather, in the Gospel of John, and much of the New Testament elsewhere, a deeper kind of theological and spiritual understanding is meant—centered on trust in Jesus and the presence of both the Son (Jesus) and the Father through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not mentioned directly in the prayer-discourse of chapter 17, but it can be inferred from the theme of unity (esp. verses 20-24) and the triadic relationship of Father-Son-Believer(s):

Mention should be made of the specific title xristo/$ (“Anointed [One]”). Though the Johannine portrait of Jesus goes far beyond the traditional Jewish conception(s) of the Anointed One (Messiah), it retains the title and the fundamental identification of Jesus with the Messianic figure-types—Prophet, Davidic Ruler, and also “Son of Man” (on these, cf. the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). The association of the titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God” goes back to the early Gospel traditions (in the Baptism and Passion/crucifixion scenes, etc), and, while the latter title (i.e. Jesus as God’s Son) dominates the Gospel of John, the former is certainly not forgotten. True knowledge of Jesus—the knowledge which is the same as Life—includes recognition that he is the Anointed One of God. The closing words of the Gospel proper give unmistakable expression to this fact:

“These (thing)s have been written (so) that you might trust that Yeshua is the Anointed One, the Son of God, and that, trusting, you would hold Life in his name.” (20:31)