The Speeches of Acts, Part 22: Acts 19:23-41

The previous articles of this series covered the speeches in the book of Acts, through the Areopagus Speech of Paul in Acts 17 (cf. Parts 20 & 21). I will now be examining the remaining speeches in the book, which may be outlined as:

    • The twin speeches of Demetrius and the Ephesian official (19:23-41)
    • Paul’s address to the Elders of Ephesus/Asia (20:17-38)
    • Paul’s address to the people upon his arrest in Jerusalem (21:37-22:21ff)
    • The speeches of Tertullus and Paul before Felix (24:1-21)
    • Paul’s speech before Agrippa (26:1-29ff)
    • Paul’s address to Jews in Rome (28:23-28)

This article will deal with the first of these—the twin speeches (both by non-Christians) in chapter 19. Before preceding, it may be worth reminding the reader of the basic sermon-speech pattern I am utilizing, and which can be discerned (with some variation) in most, if not all, of the speeches in Acts:

    • Narrative introduction—this may be a simple introduction or include an extended narrative
    • The speech itself:
      • Introductory address, often with kerygmatic elements, leading into the Scripture passage
      • Citation from Scripture
      • Exposition and Gospel kerygma
      • Concluding exhortation
    • Narrative summary

Acts 19:23-41

Chapter 19 records Paul’s missionary work in Ephesus, chief city of Roman Asia. Within the overall narrative of Acts, this work in Ephesus represents the climactic point of Paul’s missionary journeys in the Greco-Roman world. Beginning with chapter 20, the arc of the narrative shifts to his return to Jerusalem, arrest, and (final) journey to Rome. There are actually four main episodes in this Ephesian section of the missionary narratives, which I outline (in two parts) as follows:

    • Establishment of Apostolic (Pauline) Christianity in Ephesus, contrasted with the incomplete understanding of ‘Baptist’ believers (18:23-19:7)
      • 18:23-28—Apollos in Ephesus (Baptism of John point of contrast [v. 25ff])
      • 19:1-7—Paul in Ephesus (Baptism of John point of contrast)
    • Paul’s Missionary Work in Ephesus (19:8-41)
      • 19:8-22—His Missionary Work described
        • Vv. 8-11—Part 1 narration
        • Vv. 12-16—Illustrated by two key traditions
        • Vv. 17-20—Part 2 narration
        • Vv. 21-22—Conclusion
      • 19:23-41—The Effect of His Missionary Work

The two speeches are part of this last section, describing/illustrating the effect of Paul’s mission work on the (pagan) population of Ephesus (and the surrounding area). In tone and subject matter, it resembles the earlier episode in Philippi (16:16-24ff), in which the Gospel preaching of Paul and his fellow missionaries (Silas) had a negative (commercial) impact on the religious culture of the city (vv. 16, 19), provoking a hostile response (vv. 19ff). The Ephesian episode is all the more striking in that Paul himself scarcely appears in it at all (vv. 29b-30), and says nothing. The speeches are made by non-Christians, and reflect two different aspects of the pagan response. The only other speech by a non-believer that is at all comparable is that of Gamaliel in 5:34-40 (discussed in Part 8); indeed, as we shall see, there are definite parallels between that speech and the one given by the Ephesian official in 19:35-40.

Here is an outline of the passage as a whole:

    • Introduction—v. 23
    • Speech #1 (Demetrius)—vv. 24-27
    • Response: “Great is Artemis…” —vv. 28-34
      • Outcry 1 (v. 28)
        • Chaos/Confusion (vv. 29-33), affecting:
          —Paul & his Disciples
          —Alexander & his fellow Jews
          neither is able to speak and address the crowd
      • Outcry 2 (v. 34)
    • Speech #2 (Ephesian official)—vv. 35-40a
    • Conclusion—v. 40b

We can see how the two speeches bracket the central scene of tumult and confusion among the people (vv. 28-34)—in this pagan uproar, neither Christian (Paul & his companions) nor Jew (Alexander) is able to do anything about it.

Introduction (verse 23)

This sense of conflict, coming as a result of the Pauline ministry, is expressed clearly in the opening narration, referring to it as disturbance (“stirring”, ta/raxo$) about “the Way” (h( o%do$): “And down (around) th(at) time there came to be no little disturbance about the Way”. For other instances in the book of Acts where the early Christian movement was called “the Way”, cf. 9:2; 19:9; 22:4; 24:14, 22; note also 16:17; 18:25-26. This agitation among the people is to be understood essentially as the result of the dramatic episodes described previously in vv. 11-20; the public burning of expensive pagan (‘magical’) writings, in particular, would have been most striking (v. 19).

First Speech (Demetrius, verses 24-27)

Narrative Introduction (vv. 24-25)

The “disturbance” mentioned in verse 23 is clearly presented by the author as representative of the conflict between early Christianity and the (pagan) religion of the Greco-Roman world (here, Roman Asia). This conflict both defines, and is expressed by, the speech of Demetrius, a “beater/hammerer of silver” (a)rguroko/po$). The significance of this detail must be understood in the light of earlier episodes—in Lystra (14:11-18), Philippi (16:16-21ff), and Athens (17:16-31)—involving pagan deities and their images, etc. Especially important in this regard is the wording used by Paul in his Areopagus speech (17:24), where he contrasts the true God (and Creator of all) with those (pagan) deities thought to dwell in shrines “made by (human) hands” (xeiropoih/to$). A bit later in the speech (v. 29), he contrasts the true God with the images of these other deities, made, for example, of gold and silver (a&rguro$), and carved/marked by human production (te/xnh) and (artistic) impulse. Demetrius is just such an artisan/producer (texni/th$), and addresses a group of his fellow workers in his speech (v. 24-25a):

“For (there was) a certain (man), Belonging-to-Demeter {Demetrios} by name, a beater of silver making silver shrines for Artemis, (who) held alongside for the (other) producers no little work (to profit by), (and) whom he (now) gathered together, and (also) the workers about [i.e. associated with] these (men), (and) said (to them):”

Thus he addresses a significant group of artisans and workers involved in production of images, etc, related to the cult of Artemis—a major industry in Ephesus and Roman Asia.

Address (v. 25b)

According to the speech-pattern in Acts, the introductory address typically leads into a central citation from Scripture. Clearly, this would not be part of the speech by a (pagan) non-believer such as Demetrius, and there is nothing corresponding to it. Even so, the address, follows the pattern of earlier speeches, beginning with the vocative a&ndre$ (“Men…”, cf. 2:5, 14, 22, 29; 3:12; 5:35, et al.). The principal statement of his address defines the situation more clearly:

“Men, you (may) stand (your mind) upon (it) [i.e. understand], that out of this work is our good way (of liv)ing”

As in the episode at Philippi (16:16, 19), the early Christian mission in the Greco-Roman world has (or may have) a detrimental economic effect on segments of society dependent upon the pagan religious culture. The response of these artisans is practical, rather than purely based on religious concerns.

Exposition and ‘Kerygma’ (v. 26)

Instead of the Christian kerygma, or gospel proclamation, of the sermon-speech pattern (see above), here we have a description or characterization of it from a hostile (pagan) standpoint:

“and you (can) look upon (it) and hear (it), that not only (in) Efesos, but (in) nearly all of Asia (has) this Paulus been persuading an ample throng (of people), and made (them) stand over (with him), saying that ‘they are not gods’ th(ese thing)s coming to be (made) through (our) hands!”

The expression “this [ou!to$] Paulus” and the verb pei/qw (“persuade”), in particular, echo and summarize the proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel as the central activity and purpose of the Pauline mission. The phrase “coming to be (made) through (our) hands” (dia\ xeirw=n gino/menoi) again reflects the important wording in 17:24-25 (also 7:41, 48; cf. above), and the contrast between the true God (proclaimed by early Christians) and the images/temples of the pagan ‘deities’.

Exhortation (implied, v. 27)

This is a different sort of exhortation than what we find in the sermon-speeches by Christians; rather, it is intended to spur the people (Demetrius’ fellow artisans) to take action in response to Paul’s missionary work. The urgency to act is indicated by the verb kinduneu/w (“be in danger/peril”):

“And not only this, our portion (in this work) is in danger (of) coming into (complete) disgrace, but also the sacred place of the great goddess Artemis being counted unto [i.e. as] nothing, and even the greatness of her whom the whole (of) Asia and the inhabited (world) reveres (may) be about to be taken down!”

The Greek deity Artemis (syncretized with Roman Diana) was the chief deity worshiped in Ephesus, reflecting a high Goddess conception that likely stretches back into the Anatolian Bronze Age and Neolithic period. Her lavish cult—including temples, festivals, images, processions, and celebrations of various sorts—in Ephesus and the surrounding region was well known, and certainly a source of both economic activity and civic pride for the city. Thus, Demetrius’ warning stems from more than just a concern for the livelihood of his fellow artisans—the early Christian mission threatens the very existence of the religious culture that defines and governs the city. The three clauses show this progression of “danger”:

    • production of images and shrines will come into disrepute
    • the great sacred place (temple) of Artemis itself will be counted as nothing
    • the greatness of the goddess Artemis herself will be diminished

This effectively serves to summarize the entire Greco-Roman religious establishment: (1) images and popular devotion, (2) temple and cult/priesthood, and (3) the conception/recognition of the deity.

Response by the Crowd (verses 28-34)

In the structure of the narrative, the response by Demetrius’ audience (fellow artisan/workers) is apparently picked up more widely by the crowds, spreading through the city (v. 29a). This results in an extended scene of confusion and chaos, moving from Demetrius’ audience to a crowd of thousands filling the great theater of Ephesus (v. 29b). The scene is framed by the people/crowds shouting “Great (is) Artemis of the Ephesians!” (mega/lh h(  &Artemi$  )Efesi/wn, vv. 28, 34). This represents the voice of the pagan world rising up in response (opposition) to the early Christian (Pauline) mission. Note the clear structure of this section:

    • Outcry 1: “Great (is) Artemis of the Ephesians” (v. 28)
    • Chaos/Confusion among the People—in the city and the theater (vv. 29-33)
      • Confusion in the city (vv. 29-31): Paul & his companions
      • Confusion in the theater (vv. 32-33): Alexander & his fellow Jews
    • Outcry 2: “Great (is) Artemis of the Ephesians” (v. 34)

The presence of Paul and Alexander (an otherwise unknown Jew in Ephesus) in the middle of this scene is curious—why are they mentioned when they do not feature in what follows, and are not even able to speak or address the crowd? In particular, one would expect Paul to have a more prominent role in the narrative here. One critical view would be that, in the original Ephesian tradition underlying vv. 23-41, Paul really did not feature at all, but was introduced (only to suddenly disappear) in vv. 29-30 in order to integrate the episode within the wider setting of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. It may also simply be that, at the historical level, Paul was not able to participate in the proceedings. However, the careful structure suggests a literary shaping with a clear (and most interesting) purpose: to illustrate the power of the pagan religious culture of the Greco-Roman world, which threatens both Christianity (Paul & his companions) and Judaism (Alexander & fellow Jews). The unified voice of the Ephesian crowd (with their confession of Artemis) serves as a intentional contrast to the unity of early Christians with their proclamation of Jesus and the one true God (YHWH). The word o(moqumado/n (“[with] one impulse”), describing the crowd in v. 29, was used repeatedly to describe the early Christian community in Jerusalem (1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12). Only here, the unified response of the (pagan) crowd results in confusion and violent action:

“And the city was full of the pouring together [sugxu/sew$] (of people), and they rushed [w%rmhsan] with one impulse [o(moqumado/n] into the place of (public) viewing [i.e. theater], (hav)ing seized hold of [sunarpa/sante$] Gaius and Aristarchos together…” (v. 29)

Their action is similar to that of the Jewish crowd that rushed [w%rmhsan] upon Stephen with one impulse [o(moqumadon] (7:57); the parallel between Jewish and Pagan hostility to Christianity is strengthened when we consider the similarity between the speech in vv. 35ff and that of Gamaliel (cf. below). The structure of the narrative in vv. 29ff is more precise than a casual reading might suggest:

    • Confusion in the city (v. 29a)
      • Paul’s companions [Gaius & Aristarchos] (v. 29b)
        • Paul comes forward to address the crowd, but is prevented (v. 30)
          • Presence of the Ephesians officials [Asiarchs] (v. 31)
    • Confusion in the theater (v. 32)
      • Jews in the crowd [companions of Alexander] (v. 33a)
        • Alexander comes forward to address the crowd, and is prevented (v. 33b-34a)
          • Presence of an Ephesian official (v. 35)

The first Ephesian officials are called by the title  )Asia/rxh$ (“chief of Asia”), which can be understood in several ways. The simplest explanation is that it refers to a person who belonged to the public assembly for the Roman province of Asia, which met regularly in Ephesus. It is said here that several of these men, present in the city, were friendly toward Paul (lit. “[one]s fond of [him]”, fi/loi); and it is they who ultimately persuade him not to attempt to enter the theatre (v. 31). The second Ephesian official is referred to by the term grammateu/$ (“writer”), indicating, in particular, someone with a good understanding of the written law. It is he who addresses the crowd (in the theater), with the second speech.

Second Speech (verses 35-41)

Narrative Introduction & Address (vv. 35-36)

The brief narrative introduction (v. 35a) simply states that this literate official (grammateu/$) “set(tled) down” (vb. kataste/llw) the crowd. It was neither Paul (a Christian) or Alexander (a Jew) who quiets the crowd, but a thoughtful and reasonable pagan; this point is significant, and will be touched on below. The address (vv. 35b-36) begins just as in the first speech, with a vocative a&ndre$ (“Men…”, cf. above):

“Men, Efesians, what (person) is (there) of (you) men that does not know the city of the Efesians (as) being (the) shrine-sweeper of the great Artemis and of th(at which) fell from (the realm of) Dis? So (then), these (thing)s being without (any) utterance against (them), it is necessary for you to begin (to be) settled down, and to act (doing) nothing falling forward.”

The formal (and technical) language here sounds rather awkward when rendered literally, as I have done. By speaking of what the people know, this official is utilizing a well-known rhetorical technique intended to assuage the audience (captatio benevolentiae, “capture of good will”), as well as to establish a point of agreement upon which to build. The word newko/ro$, lit. “shrine sweeper”, means someone who takes care of a religious shrine, and refers to Ephesus as the location of the great temple of Artemis. The adjective diopeth/$, literally means something which “fell from (the realm) of Zeus [Di$]”, but as an idiom simply “fallen from the sky“. It probably refers to a meteorite which took on sacred status as a divine image/manifestation (of Artemis). The purpose of this reaffirmation of the Artemis cult in Ephesus is to convince the people that, contrary to Demetrius’ warnings, there is no real threat to it at present. Therefore, they ought to settle down and not take any rash action (indicated by the adjective propeth/$, “falling/stumbling forward”).

The reference to the Artemis cult, etc, in verse 35 functions as a citation from history, essentially taking the place of the citation from Scripture in the sermon-speech pattern (see above). It is worth comparing with the speech of Gamaliel in Acts 5:35-40 (Part 8 of this series), for which I have given the following outline:

    • 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)

Exposition / ‘Kerygma’ (v. 37)

As in the speech of Demetrius, there is no Gospel proclamation (kerygma) as such, but, rather, a reference to the preaching/missionary activity of Paul and his colleagues. Only, the description here is presented in a more positive light, regarding the conduct of these Christians:

“For you brought these men (forward), and (yet they are) not strippers [i.e. robbers] of sacred (places), and are not insulting our Deity.”

This statement affirms the prior notice that Paul and his associates pose no threat to the Artemis cult, in the sense that they are not acting violently against the sacred things/places, nor are they speaking abusively against the goddess herself. This is an important emphasis, one made repeatedly in the book of Acts: that the Christian Community and its missionaries do not constitute a danger to the order of society, neither in the Jewish nor Greco-Roman world. Here it is entirely the latter (Greco-Roman), since the Jews (Alexander and his fellows) are isolated and play no role in the scene; the hostile crowd, for the first time in the Acts narratives, is entirely pagan.

Exhortation (vv. 38-40)

The advice given by the Ephesian official to the crowd is similar to that given by Gamaliel (5:38-39) to his fellow Jews—they should take care how they act toward these Christians. Being a grammateu/$, he naturally makes a point of following the (written) law, rather than resorting to exacting justice through mob violence. There is an established public (a)gorai=o$) forum for resolving disputes, and there are government officials presiding over them—note the use of the term a)nqu/pato$ here, which could also refer to the highest official, the Roman proconsul (Asia being a senatorial province). The importance of following the law is stated most clearly in verse 39:

“And if you seek (any) further (action) on (this), resolution about (it) will be (made) in the law(ful) assembly [e)kklhsi/a].”

There is, of course, a play on words here—e)kklhsi/a, lit. those “called out” to assemble, which elsewhere is typically used for the gatherings of believers. There is another play on words in v. 40, where the official uses the same verb (kinduneu/w, “be in danger”) as Demetrius did in his speech. The irony is that, while there is no danger to society from the Christian mission, the people are in peril by their own hostile/violent reaction to it; indeed, the crowd’s uproar represents the real danger to the city. They are warned that, if they act rashly, they will be called to give account (lo/go$) for it before the authorities, much as Gamaliel warns his fellow Jews that they will be held responsible by God.

Narrative Conclusion (v. 41)

The brief conclusion to the speech, which also serves as the conclusion to the entire Ephesus narrative, is parallel to the opening:

“And having settled down the crowd, the grammateu/$ said…”
“And having said these (thing)s, he released the assembly.”

Again, the word e)kklhsi/a is used (here translated “assembly”), parallel with o&xlo$ (“throng [of people], crowd”). Also the official’s speech governs the twin actions, showing its effect in calming the people and resolving the conflict:

    • kataste/llw (“set(tle) down”)—even before he speaks, the presence of this official settles and quiets the crowd
    • a)polu/w (“loose[n] from”)—in context this verb can mean that the official, after his speech, dismisses or “releases” the crowd; however, the literal sense may be at work as well: through his speech, he has “loosed” the people from their hostile intent (toward Paul)

What is most remarkable about this episode is that it is not Paul (nor any other Christian) who calms the crowd and resolves the conflict through his speech, but a pagan city official! The attention the author gives to this is surely significant in the context of his overall narrative. Again, the parallel with Gamaliel is important to note. Gamaliel is a leading Jewish official who, speaking in a reasoned manner, advises the people not to act rashly, implying that the Christians may not pose any real threat to the order and good of society. Now, a leading pagan (Roman/Asian) official does much the same, even more pointedly, from the standpoint of Roman (provincial) society, emphasizing that Paul and his associates have neither broken any laws nor acted abusively even towards the pagan religious culture of the city. We may, perhaps, draw two (practical) conclusions from these thematic strands in the book of Acts:

    • Christians act, and are to act, in a responsible and lawful way within society, and that
    • Societal change (including change of religious views) is to come about through the preaching/proclamation of the Gospel, and not through fomenting social unrest and violence; indeed, such unrest is fundamentally anti-Christian, i.e. hostile to the Gospel, as indicated in this very episode.

The Law in Luke-Acts, Part 2: The Mission to the Gentiles

The Mission to the Gentiles

In this part (cf. the earlier Pt 1), I will explore the Law in the book of Acts in terms of the early Christian Mission to the Gentiles, as presented in chapters 10-14, along with a specific discussion of the so-called “Jerusalem Council” in chapter 15.

The Early Mission into the Gentile World

This will be treated, rather briefly, under several headings:

    • Missionary Themes and Motifs in the early chapters
    • Conflict with Judaism
    • The Cornelius episode in Acts 10-11
    • The (first) Missionary Journey of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13-14)

Missionary Themes and Motifs (in Acts 1-9)

Acts 1:8—Jesus’ final instruction to his disciples (according to the narrative of Luke-Acts) emphasizes the worldwide character (i.e. into all the Greco-Roman world) of the eventual Christian mission; it fairly well serves as a summary of book of Acts itself:

“and you will receive power of the holy Spirit coming upon you, and you will be my witnesses—in Yerushalaim and [in] all Yehudah and Shomrôn, and until the end(s) of the earth

Cf. also the declaration in Luke 24:47 that the Gospel (repentence and forgivness of sins) “should be proclaimed in his [i.e. Jesus’] name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem”.

Acts 1:15-26ff—As I have argued previously, the reconstitution of the Twelve, and the united presence of the believers together in one place in Jerusalem (2:1ff), are symbolic of the (end-time) restoration of Israel—an important theme in the early chapters of Acts. This idea of the (post-exilic) restoration of the twelve tribes, gathered from among the nations, was typically described in eschatological language, both in the Old Testament Prophets and subsequent Jewish tradition; often this involved, in some manner, the inclusion of Gentiles—see especially in the book of Isaiah (Deutero-Trito Isa 45:22; 49:5-6; 56:6-8; 60:3-7; 66:18-19ff), and cf. also Mic 4:1-2 (Isa 2:2-3); Zech 2:11; 8:20-23; Tobit 14:6.

Acts 2:4ff—There are echoes of the ancient Babel tradition (confusion of tongues) in the Pentecost narrative (the confusion created by the disciples speaking in tongues), a point I have demonstrated as well in prior studies. The hearing of the Word of God in the languages of the nations also reflects Jewish traditions surrounding the Sinai revelation (trad. set at Pentecost, cf. Exod 19:1). The reversal of the division of language (representing fundamental division of the nations), is also an eschatological motif (e.g. Zeph 3:9) which admirably serves the theme of the mission to the Gentiles in Acts.

Acts 2:5-11—The list of nations (set in the mouth of the crowd, as a literary/dramatic device) covers much of the territory of the Roman empire and its environs (i.e. the known world at the time). Even though these are Jews dwelling or residing in Jerusalem, they still represent the nations. The symbolism is two-fold: (1) the Jews returning to Jerusalem/Judah from the nations, and (2) the nations coming to Jerusalem to hear the word of God—both are important eschatological themes (see above) and foreshadow the mission into the Gentile world. For additional references to the universality of the Christian mission in Peter’s subsequent sermon-speeches, see Acts 2:21, 39; 3:25; 4:12.

Acts 6:1-6—This brief traditional narrative (which sets the stage for the story of Stephen in 6:8-8:1) indicates the influence of “Hellenists” (Jewish believers who exclusively, or primarily, speak and read Greek) in the early congregation. Some of these believers may have come from the Diaspora (2:5-11, 14, 41; cf. 6:9ff), that is from among the nations; all of the Seven (6:5-6) have Greek names, and at least one (Nikolaos) is described as a proselyte (Gentile convert to Judaism). This socio-religious dynamic may have contributed to the opposition to Stephen, and the charges against him (6:11-14). The ‘anti-Temple’ elements in his speech (in 7:35-50, cf. below) especially seem to point toward the wider Gentile mission—note the similarity of language in Paul’s speech at Athens (17:22-29). Following Stephen’s execution, the onset of persecution causes the believers to be scattered (a new Dispersion) out of Judea (8:4ff; 11:19) and into the Gentile world.

Acts 8:26ff—It is not clear whether the Ethiopian official (‘eunuch’) is a Diaspora Jew, a proselyte, or simply an interested Gentile (a ‘God-fearer’). The ambiguity may be intentional; at any rate, he holds a place (in the narrative framework) between the Diaspora Jews of 2:5-11 and the Gentile God-fearer Cornelius (chs. 10-11), and, as such, his encounter with Philip is set at the threshold of the mission to the Gentiles.

Acts 9:15—The visionary words (of Jesus) to Paul specifically declare that he “is to take up (and carry) my name in the eyes of (the) nations…”, directly emphasizing (for the first time in Acts) a mission to the Gentiles.

Conflict with Judaism

Issues related to the Law (Torah) in Acts occur within the framework of these two historical and narrative themes: (1) the mission to the Gentiles, and (2) early Christian conflicts with Judaism. Interestingly, for the most part, the conflicts with Judaism are not specifically tied to the Gentile mission.

Appearances before the Sanhedrin—There are three episodes where believers are taken into custody and brought before the Jewish council (“Sanhedrin”) in Jerusalem, in Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-41; and 6:8-8:1. There is a similar narrative arc to each of these episodes, increasing in severity, leading ultimately to the mob-execution of Stephen. The reasons indicated for the believers being taken into custody are as follows:

    • The priests and Sadducees were worried/troubled because the believers were proclaiming resurrection from the dead in Jesus (4:1-2)
    • The High priest, and those with him (identified as Sadducees), were “filled up with hot (zeal/jealousy)”, presumably because of the popular effect and success of the early Christian preaching (5:17)
    • Hellenist Jews who disputed with Stephen secretly gathered supporters and stirred up the crowd against him with (slanderous) claims (6:11); this leads to an action by the Council, with charges (apparently brought by false witnesses), 6:12-14.

The Sanhedrin action is clearest in the case of Stephen, with a ‘trial’ setting that has a number of definite similarities with the ‘trial’ of Jesus. The charges are related to those against Jesus as well (cf. 6:14; Mark 14:58 par), but they also look forward to the claims brought against Paul at his arrest in Jerusalem (21:28). With regard to Stephen and Paul, the claim is that they speak against the Law and the Temple. There is no indication that Stephen spoke against the Law, but there are anti-Temple sentiments in his speech (7:35-50) (on this, see my discussion in the series on the Speeches of Acts). In the book of Acts, Paul says nothing opposing the Law or the Temple (the closest we find is in 13:39); in fact, the author takes care in the narrative to indicate that this is not true of Paul (cf. 21:20-24ff). Elsewhere, in Galatians (and parts of Romans), Paul’s line of argument certainly could be (and doubtless was) understood by many Jews (and Jewish Christians) as being “against the Law”.

Opposition to Paul’s Mission Work—This is described already in chapter 9, following his conversion, in response to his early preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem (9:22-25, 29-30). During the story of his missionary journeys in Acts, the Jewish opposition is a (stereo)typical element in the narrative, with little attempt to flesh it out in detail; a definite pattern emerges, which is doubtless both historical and literary:

Even though Jewish opposition gradually leads to Paul focusing more on outreach to Gentiles, this mission does not appear to be the basis of the opposition. As in 5:17, the reason typically given is jealousy (13:45; 17:5), apparently due to the success of his preaching with other Jews and Gentile proselytes/God-fearers (in the synagogue setting). However, there certainly were substantive religious objections as well, as we see described (in seminal form) in 9:22-23:

“but Saul [Paul] was much more empowered and threw together the Jews (in confusion) [i.e. confounded them]…bringing together (points to show) that this (one) [i.e. Jesus] is the Anointed.
And as [i.e. after] sufficient days were filled up, the Jews consulted/decided together to take him away [i.e. to kill him]…”

See also the charge brought against him in Corinth (18:12), which is similar in tone and substance (even if presented maliciously) in 21:28. Thus we find three sources of opposition:

    • Jealousy with regard to the success of Paul’s mission
    • Paul’s (effective) proclamation and demonstration that Jesus is the Anointed One (“Messiah”)
    • The view, whether or not accurate to any extent, that Paul teaches against the Law

The last of these relates more directly to the Gentile mission, as we see also in the core narratives of chapters 10-11 and 15; in these episodes, however, as in Galatians, the opposition comes from Jewish Christians.

The Cornelius Episode (Acts 10-11)

I have already discussed this in detail as part of the series on the Speeches of Acts; here I will only highlight the most salient points:

    • Cornelius is identified as a devout “God-fearer”—i.e. a Gentile who follows Jewish belief, ethics and tradition (at least in part), is sympathetic and supportive of Judaism, faithful in prayer and charitable giving, etc. This is important in that it sets the initial mission to the Gentiles within a Jewish context. Cf. also the central episode of 13:13-52.
    • Central to the narrative of chapter 10 is Peter’s vision (vv. 9-16), which effectively abolishes the dietary restrictions involving clean and unclean animals (cf. Lev 11; Deut 14:4-20). When Peter objects to the divine command to slay and eat from both clean and unclean animals (vv. 13-14), the heavenly voice declares bluntly: “that which God (has) made clean you must not treat as common” (v. 15). The importance of this scene (and the difficulty surrounding it) is indicated by the fact that Peter narrates it a second time in chapter 11:5-11.
    • There are two levels of meaning to Peter’s vision: (1) literal, abolishing the dietary restriction (involving clean and unclean animals), and (2) symbolic, abolishing the ethno-religious distinction between Jew and Gentile. It is the latter interpretation that is in view in 10:28; however, it is hard to see how the plain sense of verse 15 can be ignored or denied—if valid, then it is the first instance in Acts where regulations from the Torah are abolished (or re-interpreted) in a Christian context. While the consequences of this view are not dealt with specifically in Acts, they seem to underlie the episode in Galatians 2:11-14, and would clearly be a practical concern in Jewish-Gentile relations in the mission field.
    • Peter accepts the invitation and visits Cornelius, entering his house, despite the basic religious objection voiced in 10:28: “it is not proper/lawful [i.e. against custom] (for) a Jewish man to join (with) or come toward another tribe/clan [i.e. race/nation]”—note the same basic objection, stated in more certain terms in 11:3 (“you went in toward men having foreskin [i.e. uncircumcised] and ate with them”).
    • The objection (11:3), from Jewish believers in Jerusalem, with regard to Peter’s action emphasizes two points: (a) circumcision and (b) Jews eating with Gentiles, which are central to the two main portions of chapter 15 respectively (cf. below).
    • Acceptance of Gentiles believers is confirmed by the miraculous work of God (10:44-46; 11:15-16); the question is whether Jewish believers would accept this (indicated by formal admission to baptism), 10:47-48; 11:17.
    • The narrative concludes with a fundamental acceptance that God has given to Gentiles salvation (“repentance unto [eternal] life”), 11:18.

The (first) Missionary Journey of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13-14)

The missionary work of Paul and Barnabas was centered primarily within the Synagogue setting, preaching to Jews and Gentile proselytes or ‘God-fearers’ (13:5, 14ff, 44; 14:1); see especially the central sermon by Paul at Pisidian Antioch (13:13-52), discussed as part of the series on the Speeches of Acts. Note the following important details of the sermon:

    • The addresses in vv. 16, 26, 38 unite Jews and (Gentile) God-fearers under the label “brothers”
    • The promise to the Fathers (of Israel) is fulfilled to their children (Jews and Gentiles both) in Christ (v. 32-33)
    • Salvation and forgiveness are connected with freedom, and contrasted with the Law of Moses (vv. 38-39) (a theme developed more substantially by Paul in Galatians and Romans)
    • Paul emphasizes his (and Barnabas’) role as chosen missionaries to the Gentiles (vv. 46-48); note, in particular, the citation of Isaiah 49:6 in v. 47 (cf. also Luke 2:32).

This episode represents a shift in focus—both historically (of Paul’s) mission, and in terms of the narrative of Acts—toward the Gentiles. Even though Paul would continue to preach in the Synagogues, he and his co-workers would increasingly address Gentiles outside of a Jewish context. This is clearly narrated (for the first time) in 14:8-18 (cf. also 17:17b ff).

The “Jerusalem Council” of Acts 15

Many critical questions and difficulties surround the narrative of Acts 15:1-35 (the so-called “Jerusalem Council”), which I am addressing (at least in part) in a supplemental article. Here, I wish to focus on the main issues involved, both from the standpoint of historical tradition, and the way this tradition has been understood and shaped within the narrative framework by the author of Acts (trad. Luke). The narrative can be divided into two main portions, which I treat here under the following headings:

    • What is not required of Gentile converts (15:1-21)
    • What is required of Gentile converts (15:22-35)

What is not required of Gentile converts (15:1-21)

The first half of the narrative can be outlined as follows:

    • Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-5), which establishes the conflict and the primary issue involved
    • Speeches of Peter (vv. 6-11) and James (vv. 13-21), with a joining transition in verse 12—the speeches of these leading apostles provide an authoritative determination of the issue.

Both of these sections have been analyzed in considerable detail in the series on the Speeches of Acts. The narrative introduction is framed by statements in vv. 1 and 5 which set the conflict:

V. 1: Believers (“certain [ones]”) from Judea (to those in Antioch): “If you are not circumcised in the custom/practice of Moses, you are not able to be saved”
Western MSS add “and walk in the custom/practice of Moses”
V. 5: Certain believers from the Pharisees (to the rest of the [Jewish] believers in Jerusalem): “It is necessary to circumcise them [i.e. Gentile converts] and to give along the message (that they are) to keep the Law of Moses

Clearly observance of the (entire) Old Testament/Jewish Law (Torah) was at issue, but the main concern involved circumcision (also the principal question in Galatians). Interestingly, there is no record of the considerable debate, dispute and other discussion which must have taken place (summarized generally in vv. 6-7a, 12); rather, space is devoted entirely to the (positive) speeches of Peter and James:

  • Peter’s speech—Interpretation of recent events (conversion of Cornelius) as the work of God, confirmed by the miraculous gift of the Spirit, with no distinction between Jew and Gentile (vv. 7-9)
    • Determination: Observing the Law is referred to as a “yoke” which even Jews are not able to bear (thus it should not be forced upon Gentiles); rather we trust/believe that we all (Jew and Gentile alike) are saved by the favor/Grace of the Lord Jesus (v. 10-11) (there is a curious ‘Pauline’ ring to this which many commentators have noted)
  • James’ speech—Interpretation of Scripture (Amos 9:11-12), with its message of the (eschatological and ‘Messianic’) restoration of Israel (see above), applied to the Christian mission to the Gentiles (vv. 13-18)
    • Determination: His (authoritative) judgment is that Jewish believers should not “crowd in alongside” the Gentile converts, i.e. should not pressure or require them to observe the Law (v. 19)

What is required of Gentile converts (vv. 22-35)

The second half of the narrative follows an outline parallel to the first half:

    • Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-5)
      • Speeches of Peter and James (vv. 6-21)
      • The Letter (from the Council) (vv. 22-29)
    • Narrative Conclusion (vv. 30-35)

Just as verses 1 and 5 frame the conflict in the Introduction, so verses 30 and 35 frame the resolution (with its setting in Antioch). The believers rejoice at the letter (v. 31), they are strengthened and encouraged (v. 32), and peace is restored (v. 33). There are interesting details in the letter itself (discussed in the supplemental article), but the basic thrust of it follows James’ own determination in verses 19-21, and indeed, the narrative as a whole:

    • Verse 24—in the narrative context this would refer to verse 1-2, though many critical scholars hold that it refers to a separate (later) conflict (such as in Gal 2:12ff).
    • Verses 25-27 repeat what is narrated in v. 22; though it is just as likely that v. 22 derives from the letter.
    • Verse 28 follows the judgment of Peter and James in vv. 10, 19.
    • Verse 29 follows James’ statement in vv. 20-21.

As it is verses 20-21, stating what is required for Gentiles to observe, relating to the Law (Torah) and Jewish religious custom, which provide the greatest interpretive difficulty for us today—and since they are vital to a proper understanding of the early Christian view of the Law (as recorded in Acts)—I am devoting a separate note specifically to discuss them.

The Speeches of Acts, Part 16: Acts 13:13-52 (continued)

For the first part of this article, including a detailed discussed of verses 13-37, see Part 15. I continue here with the third (and final) main section of the speech:

Concluding Exhortation (vv. 38-41)

This section, like the two main sections prior, begins with a similar vocative address, but with some variation, as a solemn declaration (cf. 4:10, also 1:19): “Therefore (let it) be known to you—Men, Brothers…” The exhortation has two parts: (a) an announcement of forgiveness, and (b) a warning (citing Scripture).

(a) Announcement of Forgiveness (vv. 38-39)—This is an important element of the exhortation section of prior speeches (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43) and follows as part of the basic Gospel proclamation (cf. Lk 24:47). The core declaration here is:

“…that through this one [i.e. Jesus] release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins is given down (as a) message [i.e. announced] to you”

Verses 38b-39 appear to be distinctly Pauline addition (see below), relating forgiveness to the idea of justification (making/declaring one to be just/righteous):

“…[and] from all things [pa/ntwn] of which you were not able to be made/declared just in/by the Law of Moses,
in/by this one [i.e. Jesus] every [pa=$] one trusting is made/declared just.”

The demonstrative pronoun “this (one)” (ou!to$, acc. tou=ton) is used frequently referring to Jesus (2:23, 32, 36; 4:10-11; 5:31; 9:20; 10:36, 40, 42-43; cf. also 3:16; 4:17; 5:28; 7:35-38 [Moses/Jesus parallel], and similar usage in 6:13-14).

(b) Warning from Scripture (vv. 40-41)—”See (to it), therefore, (that) it not come upon you, the (thing) spoken in/by the Foretellers [i.e. Prophets]…” The Scripture citation which follows is from Habakkuk 1:5, and is one of the most extreme examples in the New Testament of an Old Testament passage taken out of its original context. Originally, verses 5-11 were an announcement of judgment (to Judah and the surrounding nations), that of the impending invasion by the Babylonians (Chaldeans). The important point carried over by Paul is that the (historical) Babylonian conquest was the work of God (Hab 1:5-6)—”I (am about to) work a work in your days…”—and foreshadows the coming eschatological Judgment. On this theme and emphasis elsewhere in Acts, see 2:19-20, 40; 3:23; 10:42; 17:31; 24:25. There is perhaps a tendency for modern Christians to ignore or minimize the importance of the idea of God’s impending (and imminent) Judgment in the New Testament, but it is a key and vital component of early Christian preaching and teaching, going back to the authentic words of Jesus himself (regarding the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, etc).

Narrative Conclusion (vv. 42-43ff)

Verses 42-43 represent the immediate narrative conclusion to the speech, with two main details:

    • Paul and Barnabas were asked to speak more on the subject on the next Sabbath (v. 42)
    • After the meeting, many Jews and (Gentile) proselytes/Godfearers followed Paul and Barnabas to hear more (v. 43); it is further stated that Paul and Barnabas persuaded them “to remain toward the favor/grace of God” (cf. 11:23; 14:22).

Thus we see emphasized: (a) the initial success of the Gospel preaching, and (b) Jews and Gentiles both respond to the Gospel. This leads to a second, supplemental narrative section (vv. 44-52), which further sets the stage (and pattern) for the subsequent mission work of Paul (and Barnabas) as narrated in Acts; note the following themes:

Central to verses 44-52 is the quotation from Isaiah 49:6 in verse 47, corresponding the the LXX version (slightly abridged):

“I have set you unto a light of the nations [i.e. as a light for the nations],
(for) you to be unto salvation [i.e. to bring salvation] until the end(s) of the earth”

Interestingly, Paul cites this verse as a charge laid by God on he and Barnabas (!), another striking example of the way that Paul (along with many other early Christians) creatively applied and interpreted the text of the Old Testament. This is one of the so-called Servant Songs in Isaiah, passages which eventually came to be treated as ‘Messianic’ references related and applied to Jesus (cf. Acts 8:28-35); for another allusion to Isa 49:6 in Luke-Acts, see the canticle of Simeon (Lk 2:29-32). With regard to Paul’s identification with the appointed figure in Isaiah, it may be better to view this in terms of Paul and Barnabas as appointed to preach the word of God and proclaim the good message (Gospel) of Jesus (see verse 32). In other words, the emphasis is on the Gospel, centered on the person and work of Jesus, that they preach, rather than on Paul and Barnabas themselves; at any rate, this would be the more natural (orthodox) understanding of verse 47. Verse 48 follows with a clear statement of the Gentile response to the Gospel message:

“And hearing (this), the nations were happy [i.e. rejoiced] and they honored/esteemed the word of the Lord and trusted, as (many) as were set [i.e. appointed] unto (the) life of the age(s) [i.e. eternal life]”

Concluding Observations

In conclusion, for the moment, I must return to the question (see at the beginning of Part 15) regarding the composition of the Speeches in the book of Acts—namely, the critical view (that they are primarily Lukan compositions) versus the traditional-conservative view (that they substantially reflect the authentic words of the speakers). Analysis of Paul’s speech, compared with other speeches earlier in Acts, provides certain pieces of evidence related to each viewpoint. Generally in favor of the critical approach is the close resemblance especially—in terms of style, structure, and content—between Paul’s speech and the Pentecost speech of Peter (Acts 2:14-36, on which cf. Parts 2 & 3 of this series). Consider the points of similarity:

    • The three-part structure—both use a vocative address (“Men, Judeans/Israelites/Brothers…”) to begin each section (2:14, 22, 29; 13:16, 26, 38)
    • In each, the second section is devoted to the kerygma and citation(s) from Scripture (Psalms) (2:22-28; 13:26-37)
    • In each, there is citation of a primary ‘Messianic’ passage applied to Jesus (Ps 110:1; 2:7, respectively)—specifically to his resurrection/exaltation (2:34f; 13:33ff)
    • Both cite Psalm 16:10, interpreted and applied to Jesus’ death and resurrection, in much the same way (2:25-31; 13:35-37)

It seems unlikely that this is merely an historical coincidence; it may be that the similarities reflect a basic style and format of early preaching, but some degree of intentional literary adaptation and patterning of material (by the author) seems to have taken place as well. Furthermore, there is a clear literary purpose to the similarities: Acts 2:14-36 and 13:16-41 represent the (first) major sermon-speeches by Peter and Paul, respectively—the two principal figures in the book; it is natural that they should be closely related.

On the other hand, as I have pointed out previously in this series, the speeches of Acts seem to preserve many authentic details from the early kerygma (Gospel proclamation), including a number of phrases and formulae not typically found in subsequent Christian writing (in the New Testament and elsewhere). A comparison between the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 2 & 13 show that: (a) in Peter’s speech the kerygma is presented piecemeal (2:22-25, 32-33, 36), in rougher and less ‘standard’ phrasing; while (b) in Paul’s speech there is a more developed, continuous, polished presentation (13:26-32f). The difference and development could be considered as historical (Paul’s speech is some years later than Peter’s), or literary (the author purposely gives a fuller treatment in Paul’s speech), or both. A possible argument in favor of the authenticity of Paul’s speech is the presence of several apparent ‘Pauline’ ideas and arguments, recognizable to those familiar with his letters (especially the undisputed epistles, e.g. Galatians, Romans); note the following details:

    • The Jewish lack of recognition of the Scriptural testimony regarding Jesus (v. 27; cf. 2 Cor 6:14)
    • Paul’s self-understanding as an Apostle (implied) (v. 32, 47; cf. Rom 1:1, 5; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1-2; 2 Cor 1:1; 12:12; Gal 1:1, 17, etc)
    • Jesus and the Gospel as the promise (to the Fathers) (v. 32) is a prominent theme in several epistles (Rom 1:2; 4:13-21; 9:8; 15:8; Gal 3-4; Eph 3:6, etc), though hardly unique to Paul
    • Salvation and forgiveness (lit. “release”) involve freedom from the Law (v. 38-39; cf. throughout Galatians and Romans 3-4, 7:1-8:7, 10:4-5; also Phil 3:9, etc)
    • Specifically the idea and terminology of justification (“made/declared just”) (v. 38-39, and frequently esp. throughout Galatians and Romans)

The Speeches of Acts, Part 15: Acts 13:13-52

Acts 13:13-52 represents one of the longest speeches in the book of Acts, and the first delivered by Paul—it is the centerpiece of Paul’s “First Missionary Journey” (Acts 13-14). It is also the last of the major sermon-speeches in the first half of the book, and serves as a veritable compendium of all that has gone before.

One should perhaps mention again here the critical theory that the speeches in the book of Acts are essentially the product of the author (trad. Luke), rather than reflecting the actual words of the putative speakers. There is some evidence in confirmation of this basic viewpoint here in Acts 13:13-52, as we shall see, but also certain details which appear to reflect authentic Pauline thought. The ‘Pauline’ elements will be discussed in their place below.

In this first Missionary Journey, Paul and Barnabas set out from Antioch (13:1-3), traveling to Cyprus (vv. 4-12), then sailing up to the southern/central coast of Anatolia (‘Asia Minor’), journeying first to Perga in the district of Pamphylia (v. 13), then north through Pisidia until they reached Antioch in Phrygia (v. 14). This Antioch was on the border facing Pisidia, and so is referred to as “Pisidian Antioch” (sometimes, inaccurately, as “Antioch in Pisidia”). From there, Paul and Barnabas traveled east through Lycaonia (13:51-14:23), before journeying back, apparently along the same route from whence they came (14:24-26ff). The speech of Paul in Acts 13:13-52 is set during the missionary work in Pisidian Antioch. It may be outlined as follows:

    • Narrative Introduction (vv. 13-15)
    • Introductory Address (vv. 16-25), with two main sections:
      (a) Historical Summary (vv. 17-22) and
      (b) Kerygmatic Summary (vv. 23-25)
    • Central Section (vv. 26-37)—a developed form of the Scripture citation and exposition (with kerygma) from the earlier sermon-speech pattern, divided into three sections:
      (a) Kerygmatic Introduction (vv. 26-32)
      (b) Scripture Citation (v. 33)
      (c) Exposition (vv. 34-37), with two other Scripture citations
    • Concluding Exhortation (vv. 38-41), also with a Scripture quotation
    • Narrative Conclusion (vv. 42-43), which leads into a second narrative section (vv. 44-52) with a central Scripture citation

Special attention should be given to the way that the three-fold structure of the speech proper (vv. 16-41) parallels almost precisely that of Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:14-36), each section beginning with a vocative address (“Men…”). I present them side by side for comparison:

Acts 2:14-36

  • vv. 14-21: “Men, Judeans…” ( &Andre$  )Ioudai=oi…)
  • vv. 22-28: “Men, Israelites…” ( &Andre$  )Israhli=tai…)
  • vv. 29-36: “Men, brothers…” ( &Andre$ a)delfoi/…)

Acts 13:16-41

    • vv. 16-25: “Men, Israelites ( &Andre$  )Israhli=tai) and the ones fearing God…”
    • vv. 26-37: “Men, brothers ( &Andre$ a)delfoi/), sons of Abraham and the ones fearing God among you…”
    • vv. 38-41: “Men, brothers ( &Andre$ a)delfoi/)…”

It is hard to believe that this is simply an historical coincidence. Critical scholars would perhaps regard it as evidence for Lukan composition of both speeches; at the very least, some form of intentional adaptation or patterning by the author seems likely. It may also reflect a basic sermon format or technique in common use, by the apostles and/or in Luke’s time. In discussing Peter’s Pentecost speech, I argued that there is a definite progression in the three addresses—from geographical (Judeans) to ethnic/religious (Israelites) to an even closer familial tie (Brothers). I would argue for a similar kind of progression in Paul’s speech, especially in the qualifying phrases he uses:

    • “Men, Israelites and the ones fearing God (oi( fobou/menoi to\n qeo/n)”—this connects the (Gentile) ‘Godfearers’ (such as Cornelius, cf. chapters 10-11) with the people of Israel.
    • “Men, brothers, sons of the lineage of Abraham (ui(oi\ ge/nou$  )Abraa\m) and the ones fearing God among you (oi( e)n u(mi=n fobou/menoi to\n qeo/n)”—this draws an even closer connection between Israelites and (Gentile) Godfearers, and labels them both as “brothers”.
    • “Men, brothers”—here the address is to brothers, inclusive, without any qualification.

Though Paul is primarily addressing Jews (in the Synagogue), the inclusion of “Godfearers” is surely significant (and intentional), presumably by Paul himself (as the speaker), but certainly by the author of Acts. In this first mission, Paul and Barnabas begin to “turn to the Gentiles” (vv. 46-47ff), and the narrative of the mission (chs. 13-14) is positioned between the Cornelius episode (chs. 10-11) and the Jerusalem ‘Council’ of chap. 15—both of which deal specifically with the question of the acceptance and inclusion of Gentile converts. This thematic emphasis will be strengthened by an examination of the speech in detail.

Narrative Introduction (vv. 13-15)

Verses 13-14a briefly narrate the arrival of Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch; verses 14b-15 establish the Synagogue setting of the speech. In his missionary work, Paul customarily began by speaking to Jews (and proselytes) in the local synagogue (Acts 9:20; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 7-8; 19:8; cf. also Apollos in 18:26), a practical approach, if nothing else—in the synagogue one might find, among those gathered together, a number of persons who would be interested in the Gospel, familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures and Israelite/Jewish history. Here in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas are invited to take part in the service of worship, to offer a possible “word of comfort/exhortation [lo/go$ paraklh/sew$]” for the people. Paul’s sermon-speech is presented as a response to this invitation.

Introductory Address (vv. 16-25)

“Men, Israelites and the ones fearing God…”—this is the first of the three vocative formulas which begin the three major sections of the speech (cf. above). This particular section is perhaps to be considered as the first clear presentation of “Salvation History” in the New Testament; certainly, as an authentic speech by Paul (at least in substance), it would have to be regarded as such. It can be divided into two parts:

(a) Historical Summary (vv. 17-22)—This brief summary of Old Testament (Israelite/Jewish) history naturally brings to mind the earlier speech of Stephen (Acts 7:1-53); though Stephen’s historical presentation is much lengthier, it similarly covers the period from Abraham and Joseph (“the Fathers”, 13:17) down through the reign of David (13:22). More significant is the different purpose and tone of the historical summary in Stephen’s speech, a defense speech (given before the Sanhedrin), with a severe rhetorical and polemical thrust, especially in the latter sections (7:35-53). Paul’s speech, on the other hand, is intended to convince interested Jews of the truth of the Gospel, and the historical summary is preparatory for his proclamation of Gospel history (kerygma). The historical summary concludes in v. 22b, with a composite citation of Psalm 89:20 and 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. also Isa 44:28): “I have found David the (son) of Jesse, a man according to my heart, who will do all my wishes”. If the comparison in Stephen’s speech was between Jesus and Moses, here it is between Jesus and David.

(b) Gospel Summary (vv. 23-25)—This short summary is really just the first part of the kerygma (Gospel proclamation) in the speech, the second part begins the central section (vv. 26-32). Verse 23 joins (and completes) the prior statement regarding David: “from the seed of this one [i.e. David] God has led forth to Yisrael a Savior, Yeshua” (cf. Acts 2:30). Verses 24-25 transition to the baptizing by John, which had become a key touchpoint for beginning the Gospel narrative (cf. 1:5, 22; 10:37; 11:16; 19:4, and in the Gospel tradition). V. 25 is an interesting blend of traditions (sayings) otherwise attested separately in the Synoptics and John (cf. Jn 1:20-21; Mk 1:7 par).

Central Section (vv. 26-37)

The sermon-speech pattern I have recognized (and been using) in these studies on the Speeches of Acts typically contains: (a) kerygmatic elements, (b) a central citation from Scripture, and (c) and exposition/application of the Scripture, in something of that order. The same components are present here as well, but more clearly and precisely brought together within a single section. This second section begins with a similar vocative address as the first: “Men, brothers, sons of the lineage of Abraham and the ones fearing God among you—to you this word/account [lo/go$] of salvation has been sent forth [lit. set out from {God}]” (v. 26). On expressions comparable to “word/account of salvation”, cf. Acts 5:20; 6:2, 7, etc; 4:12; 16:17; 28:28.

(a) Kerygmatic Introduction (vv. 26-32)—For those who have followed these studies on the Speeches of Acts, or are otherwise familiar with the speeches themselves, the phrases and details in these verses will be recognizable from the prior speeches, including that of Peter in Acts 10:34-48 (cf. vv. 37-42 and the discussion in part 14). I will isolate these kerygmatic elements, citing similar occurrences, and with occasional comments:

    • V. 27—for the role of the rulers (a&rxonte$) of Jerusalem in the death of Jesus, cf. 3:17; 4:26-27 (and vv. 5-11); 5:30; 7:52; on the motif of ignorance and unknowing, cf. 3:17 (and note Jn 16:3; Lk 23:34); for the Prophets’ witness to Jesus, cf. 3:18, 21-25; 8:34; 10:43; for a similar emphasis as in this verse, see also 2 Cor 3:14ff.
    • V. 28—on Jesus’ innocence (i.e. no crime requiring an interrogation or trial), and Pilate’s role in his death, cf. 3:13ff; 4:27, also 7:52; 8:32ff, and the Gospel tradition; on the use of the verb a)naire/w for putting Jesus to death, cf. 2:23; 10:39.
    • V. 29—on the death of Jesus specifically as the fulfillment of what is written in the Scriptures, cf. Lk 24:25-27, 33, 44-48; Acts 1:16, also 3:18, 21-25; 8:34; 10:43; on the mention of Jesus’ death by hanging on a tree, cf. 5:30; 10:39; here is the first reference to Jesus’ burial in Acts (cf. the Gospel tradition).
    • V. 30—Jesus’ resurrection is stated briefly, cf. 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40.
    • V. 31—on the resurrection appearances of Jesus, cf. 1:3-4; 10:40-41; on the apostles/disciples as witnesses, cf. 1:8, 22; 2:32, 40; 5:32; 10:39, 41; Lk 24:48; on the geographical detail (Galilee–Jerusalem), cf. 1:8, 11-12; 10:37; Lk 24:47.
    • V. 32—the pronoun “we” (h(mei=$) connects Paul and Barnabas with the other apostles/disciples (cf. 14:14; chap. 15) as ones called to proclaim the good message; on the ‘promise’ (e)paggeli/a) made to the Fathers, cf. 3:25; 26:6, note also 1:4; 2:33, 39; 7:17; 13:23.

(b) Scripture Citation (v. 33)—Verse 33 concludes the kerygma by emphasizing (a) the resurrection of Jesus (v. 30) as the fulfillment of the promise made to Israel (the Fathers) in v. 32, and (b) the Jews (and Godfearers) of Paul’s day as the offspring (heirs/children) of the Fathers. For the idea of believers as ‘children of the promise’, cf. 3:25-26, and e.g. in Galatians 3-4. This leads into the central citation from Scripture in v. 33b, a precise quotation of the LXX of Psalm 2:7b—

ui(o/$ mou ei@ su/, e)gw\ sh/meron gege/nnhka/ se
“You are my Son, today I have caused you to be (born)”

which is also an accurate rendering of the Hebrew. This verse holds much the same position as Psalm 110:1 in Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:34-35). Ps 2:7 and 110:1 come from royal Psalms, with the setting of the coronation/inauguration/enthronement of the (new) king, and both were understood by Christians early on as related to Jesus (as the Messiah [and Son of God]). Ps 2:7 is cited in Hebrews 1:5 and by the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism in the ‘Western’ text of Lk 3:22. Hebrews 5:5-6 quotes Ps 2:7 and 110:1 together.

(c) Exposition of Scripture (vv. 34-37)—In subsequent Christology, Ps 2:7 and 110:1 were generally understood in terms of Jesus’ divine nature and status as the (pre-existent) Son of God (this also appears to be the sense of Heb 1:5). In Acts, however, these verses relate the Sonship/Lordship of Jesus specifically with (and as a result of) his resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God. Here in Paul’s speech, Ps 2:7 is clearly interpreted in the context of the resurrection, emphasized right before and after the citation in vv. 33a, 34a. For more on early Christological thought compared with (Nicene) orthodoxy, see part 3 of this series, along with several supplemental notes and the article on Adoptionism. The citation of Ps 2:7 is followed and expounded with quotations from two further passages of Scripture, as follows:

    • An allusion to Ps 16:10 in verse 34a—”(God) made him stand up out the dead, no more about to turn under into (complete) ruin/decay [diafqora]”
      • Reference to Isa 55:3 in v. 34b (see below)
    • Citation of Ps 16:10 in v. 35—”you will not give your holy/righteous [o%sio$] One to see (complete) ruin/decay [diafqora]”

The association between Isa 55:3 and Ps 16:10 is based on the substantive adjective o%sio$ (Hebrew dysj); here is the relevant portion of Isa 55:3, in the three versions (MT/LXX/Acts) side by side:

Isa 55:3 MT

<yn]m*a$n# dw]d* yd@s=j^ <l*ou tyr!B= <k#l* ht*r=k=a#w+
“…and I will cut for/with you a lasting agreement,
the (well) supported loving/loyal things of David”

Isa 55:3 LXX

kai\ diaqh/somai u(mi=n diaqh/khn ai)w/nion ta\ o%sia Dauid ta\ pista/
“…and I will arrange for/with you an arrangement of-the-ages,
the holy (and) trustworthy things of David”

Acts 13:34b

dw/sw u(mi=n ta\ o%sia Daui\d ta\ pista/
“…and I will give you the holy (and) trustworthy things of David”

The Greek verb diati/qhmi has the fundamental meaning of setting (or arranging) things through, i.e. in order, or for a specific end purpose. The noun, of course, is related, i.e. an “arrangement”—in basic English, the Greek expression could be fairly rendered “I have arranged with you an arrangement…” (as above). The noun diaqh/kh often had the more technical sense of a “disposition (of goods/property)”, “testament”, or the like, and was also regularly used to translate the Hebrew tyrb (“agreement, covenant”). It is this latter sense (from the Old Testament) that diaqh/kh is typically carries in the New Testament. Paul’s quotation does not mention the agreement/covenant, but only the final phrase, “the holy (and) trustworthy things of David”, which is synonymous with the covenant (promises). The Hebrew adjective dysj has a wide and diverse semantic range, but perhaps could be summarized as “good, kind/loving, loyal”. The corresponding Greek adjective o%sio$ more properly relates to the religious sphere—that which is proper, good and right (“pure, whole, holy, sacred”, etc); in the LXX and New Testament it is largely synonymous with di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”).

Verses 36 and 37 apply Psalm 16:10 to the death and resurrection of Jesus in a manner very similar to that in Peter’s Pentecost speech—cf. Acts 2:29-32 and the notes in Parts 2 & 3 of this series.

(The remainder of the discussion is continued in Part 16)

Jews & Gentiles and the People of God

This is the first of several articles which will be posted periodically. The subject is so large, and the sensitivity surrounding it so great, that it must be approached with care (and some caution). I will be posting these articles to run parallel with another, related, exegetical study series on “The Law and the New Testament” (see the introduction). This initial article on “Jews & Gentiles and the People of God” follows several daily notes in which I examined the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2:1-13. I set forth as a fundamental theme of Acts 1-2 the Restoration of Israel (see the note for Pentecost Tuesday with a concluding follow-up note). Consider, especially, the parallel thematic structure of the narrative:

    • The disciples, representing the twelve tribes of Israel—the Twelve (reconstituted, Acts 1:15-26) and the wider group of around 120 (12 x 10) disciples—are united, coming together in one place (Acts 2:1)
      • where they experience the manifestation (power and presence) of the Spirit of God (parallel to the Sinai theophany)—esp. the tongues of fire, Acts 2:2-4
    • Jews from the surrounding nations, representing the dispersed twelve tribes of Israel, also come together in one place (Acts 2:5-6), eventually speaking together with a united voice (vv. 7-11)
      • where they too experience the manifestation of the Spirit (the “voice”, v. 6), as at Sinai, with the word (of God) heard being spoken in other tongues (i.e. their own languages), Acts 2:6-7ff

Note also a second parallel involving the nations (ta\ e&qnh):

    • Jews from the surrounding nations (where they had been dispersed) come together in Jerusalem
      • In the hearing of the separate languages of the nations they encounter and respond to the word of God (spoken by the disciples)—in so doing, they join with the 12/120 apostles/disciples to form a new, restored Israel
      • The disciples (who spoke the languages of the nations), are, in turn, dispersed out in to the surrounding nations (see esp. Acts 8:1-4; 11:19), where they proclaim the word of God (to Jews and Gentiles)
    • Jews and Gentiles in all the surrounding nations come together—as Israel and in Jerusalem (at the spiritual level)

To what extent can this second parallel be demonstrated as part of the original thought and purpose of the author of Acts (or his underlying tradition[s])? There are several passages where the mission to the Gentiles is clearly understood as fundamental to the “restoration of Israel”. Perhaps the most prominent is in the speech of James in Acts 15:13-21—there James cites Amos 9:11-12 in a most original and distinctive manner, tying the “rebuilt tent/booth of David” to the Gentile mission. I have discussed this passage in some detail in an earlier post.

Before proceeding to an introductory analysis of the basic idea of the “people of God”, it may be useful to survey some of the key eschatological references in the Old Testament prophets (and subsequent Jewish literature) where the role (and fate) of Gentiles in the end times is described. To begin with, let me reiterate two important aspects of the “restoration of Israel”, which I pointed out at the end of an earlier daily note (on the Pentecost narrative):

    1. The return of Israelites (Jews) from exile among the nations—this return is to the Promised Land, and, in particular, to Judah and Jerusalem.
    2. The Nations (Gentiles) come to Judah and Jerusalem, bringing tribute and/or worshiping the true God there.

The first aspect is an important and popular theme especially in the later Prophets (from the exilic/post-exilic periods), and, in particular, so-called deutero- and trito-Isaiah (Isa 40-55, 56-66, generally regarded by critical scholars as stemming from this late period, though the matter remains much in dispute). Here is a sampling of some key Isaian passages: Isa 43:5ff; 44:21-28; 48:12-21; 49:5ff; 51:11; 52:2, 7-12; 54:2-8; 55:12-13; 56:1-8; and throughout chapters 60-66, esp. 66:18-24. The imagery and sentiment of these passages largely concurs with that found in exilic/post-exilic prophets such as Ezekiel (esp. chapters 34, 37 and 47-48) and Zechariah 9-14, though in those books the military side of the restoration (i.e. the defeat/conquest of the nations, cf. below) is already becoming more prominent. The motif of restoration/return appears frequently, of course, in subsequent Jewish writings—e.g., Tobit 14:5; 2 Maccabees 2:7; Jubilees, 1:15-17ff; Testament of Benjamin 9:2, etc (selection courtesy of Sanders, pp. 79-82, see below).

With regard to the second aspect, E. P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, Fortress Press [1985], p. 214) provides a convenient summary of select passages related to the role and fate of the Gentiles, which I present here in modified form (with expanded references):

“People of God”

In the Old Testament Scriptures, the precise phrase “people of God” (formally <yh!ýa$–h*— <u^, ±am (h¹)°§lœhîm) is actually quite rare (Judg 20:2; 2 Sam 14:13), with the similar expression “people of YHWH” (hw`hy+ <u^, ±am YHWH) a bit more common (Num 16:41; Deut 27:9; Judg 5:11, 13; 1 Sam 2:24; 2 Sam 1:12; 6:21; 2 Kings 9:6; Ezek 36:20; Zeph 2:10). However, Israel is referred to as God’s people many times, including numerous instances where the revelatory/prophetic voice of God refers to Israel as “my people”. These occur frequently in the context of the Exodus—Ex 3:7ff; 5:1; 7:4; 8:22-23; 9:17 (“let my people go”, 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20-21; 9:1, 13; 10:3-4); the status of Israel as God’s people is summarized in Ex 33:16. The emphasis of Israel as God’s people is often that of holiness, related to the idea of covenant obligation; this is particularly noteworthy in Deuteronomy—Deut 7:6f; 14:2; 28:9; 29:13, etc—and throughout the Deuteronomic history (e.g., 1 Sam 2:29; 9:16-17; 2 Sam 3:18; 5:2; 7:7-11; 1 Ki 6:13; 8:16; 16:20). For the theme of holiness, see especially Lev 11:45; 19:2; 26:12.

The address of “my people” occurs regularly as a complaint or admonishment in the Psalms and Prophets (Ps 50:7; 78:1; 81:8-13; Isa 1:3; 3:12; 5:13; 10:24; 26:20; Jer 2:11ff; 4:22; 6:26; 7:23; 8:7ff; 18:15; Amos 7:8ff; Mic 6:3ff. In Hosea, there is particular emphasis upon the identity of Israel as God’s people, as the message fluctuates between one of condemnation and a promise of future restoration (Hos 1:9-10; 2:1, 23; 4:6, 8, 12; 6:11; 11:17). Indeed “my people” proves to be an important keynote, in Isaiah and the later (exilic/post-exilic) Prophets, when the theme of deliverance and restoration becomes more prominent; cf. for example in Isa 32:18; 40:1ff; 51:4ff; 52:4-12; 65:19ff; Jer 24:4-7; 30-31; 32:38ff; Ezek 11:19-20; 37:11-14; 39:7 (cf. also 38:16; 44:23).

I will explore similar language and imagery in the New Testament and contemporary Judaism in the next article.

June 3: Acts 2:1-13 (conclusion)

In the previous day’s note (for Pentecost Tuesday), I discussed the third of three major themes associated with the Pentecost Narrative of Acts 2:1-13: namely, the Restoration of Israel. This same theme was examined in two earlier passages—the disciples’ question regarding the Kingdom (Acts 1:6-8) and the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles (Acts 1:15-26). Today, in conclusion, I will look at the theme as it appears in the Pentecost Narrative itself.

This can be studied according to a pair of useful, and (I think) meaningful, chiastic outlines. First:

Outline 1:

  • The unity of the disciples (together in one place and/or for one purpose—e)pi\ to\ au)to/), verse 1.
    • The house/place of gathering is filled (e)plh/rwsen) with the Spirit, verse 2.
      • Appearance of tongues (glwssai) of fire upon each individual disciple (~120), verse 3
      • The disciples (each) begin to speak in other tongues (glwssai), verse 4
    • The disciples are all filled (e)plh/sqhsan) with the Holy Spirit, verse 4
  • The unity of the crowd—devout Jews (from all nations) in Jerusalem come together in one place, verse 5ff

I discussed the “tongues of fire” in the note for the second day of Pentecost. Here I will briefly examine the outer ring of this outline—(a) the unity of the disciples (v. 1), and (b) the unity of the crowd (v. 5ff).

a. The Unity of the Disciples (2:1)

Here are the specific words of this short verse (taken from an earlier note):

    • kai\ (“and”)
    • e)n tw=| sumplhrou=sqai (“in the being filled up” [su/n as intensive prefix, i.e. “filled completely”]—but here as a temporal clause = “when it was completely filled”)
    • th\n h(me/ran th=$ pentekosth=$ (“the Fiftieth day”)
    • h@san (“they [i.e. the Disciples] were”)
    • pa/nte$ (“all”—all of them, together)
    • o(mou= (“as one” or “at one”, i.e., together, the same; see the similar o(moqumado\n [“of one impulse”] in 1:14)
      e)pi\ to\ au)to/ (“upon the [same] thing”—this phrase occurs repeatedly in the early chapters of Acts, though somewhat obscured by conventional translations; it is indicative of the unity of the believers)

Here is the verse in literal translation:

“And in the Fiftieth day’s being filled completely, they were all at one upon the (same) thing [or, place]”

And in a more conventional translation:

“And when the Fiftieth day had been fufilled, they were all together in the same place.”
[As C. C. Torrey and other scholars have noted, the Greek may reflect an Aramaic expression “when the Weeks had been fulfilled” (e.g., aY`u^Wbv* <l^v=m!b=W), which is more intelligible]

The “Fiftieth” day (usually transliterated as “Pentecost”), is the festival of Weeks (toub%v*) in Israelite and Jewish tradition (cf. Lev. 23:9-22; Deut. 16:9-12). Fifty days (seven weeks) are counted from the offering of the firstfruit sheaf of grain at the time of Passover. Traditionally, it was also the time associated with the Sinai theophany and giving of the Law (Ex. 19:1ff). In the Exodus narrative, the entire camp of Israel was gathered together beneath the mountain “to meet God” (Ex. 19:17). Here, the disciples, too are gathered together in the same place and will “meet God”.

b. The Unity (i.e. the united voice) of the Crowd (2:5ff)

By this is meant the reaction of Jews in Jerusalem, to the theophany of the Spirit and the “speaking in other tongues”, as narrated in Acts 2:5-13.

The following outline indicates the main elements of this section:

    • Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)
    • Response of the crowd (vv. 6b-11) in two aspects:
      1) Each person hears in his/her own language
      2) Nations respond in a (symbolic) united voice
    • Confusion (v. 12, see also in vv. 6-7)—”What does this wish to be?”

The mocking retort in v. 13 serves as a lead-in to Peter’s address in vv. 14-40. Let us look at each element in a little more detail:

Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)

The mention of “Jews” ( )Ioudai=oi) being in Jerusalem may seem unnecessary, but it is significant for at least two reasons: (1) to emphasize the underlying religious and cultural unity of the ‘nations’ present in the city, and (2) it draws attention to the (post-exilic) reality of the current situation. When Israel, and particularly the southern kingdom of Judah (centered at Jerusalem), was taken into exile, the people were dispersed among the nations; and it was in the “dispersion” (diaspora) that a distinctly Jewish identity developed. It is generally assumed that these Jews are sojourning in Jerusalem for the festival of Weeks (Pentecost); the verb katoike/w often implies a more permanent residence, but here may simply mean generally “to dwell”. These Jews are “from every nation under heaven”, and have come together in the city (for the festival and/or to take up residence). At the coming-to-be of “this voice” (th/ fwnh/), again Jews, symbolized as a specific crowd (plh=qo$), “come together” (sune/rxomai) in confusion (being “stirred together” [sugxe/w]). It is interesting that, just in the tradition regarding the Sinai theophany, the multitudes are hearing different languages but one voice.

Response of the Crowd (v. 6b-11)

V. 6b and 7a reprise the confusion—they “stood out of (their minds)” and “wondered” in amazement as they heard the disciples speaking. It is unnecessary to ask just how, when, or where these people heard the disciples—and altogether beside the point. The author has crafted a marvelous dramatic scene, with events (at the historical level) certainly having been compressed together into a single moment. Similarly, it is rather unlikely that a single person or group of persons in the crowd would have said precisely what the crowd is recorded as saying here. Instead, various reactions and responses are represented by one voice. This is important thematically, and, one might say, theologically as well. Often a creative literary device conveys far more truth than a ‘sober’ record of events. Consider several of the themes inherent in the crowd’s response:

  • The reference to the disciples as “Galileans” (Galilai=oi), while serving to emphasize the wonder of the situation, also creates a subtle shift stressing ethnic (and geographic) identity. Most of the disciples, and certainly the Twelve were Galileans (“men of Galilee”, 1:11). The early Christian mission began in Galilee (cf. 1:1-2), is centered in Jerusalem (by the united community of the Disciples), and will spread from there into all nations (1:8).
  • Two key references to hearing the voices speaking “in our own language” (th=| i)di/a| dialek/tw| h(mw=n, v. 8, cf. also v. 6) and “in our tongues” (tai=$ h(mete/rai$ glw/ssai$, v. 11) bracket the list of nations in vv. 9-11a. The importance of this description should by now be apparent. It may be useful to consider the qualifying phrase accompanying each reference:
    (1) V. 8: “in our own language in which we came to be born” [e)n h! e)gennh/qhmen]
    (2) V. 11: “(hear speaking) in our tongues the great (work)s of God” [ta\ megalei=a tou= qeou=]
    The first phrase clearly indicates ethnic sense; the second echoes Old Testament language whereby news of the great and glorious deeds of God is spread into the surrounding nations (cf. Ex. 15:11ff, and many others)—geographic sense.
  • The list of nations (vv. 9-11) has been a source of some confusion, as indicated by the number of textual variants and proposed emendations. However, much of the difficulty disappears when its literary nature is recognized, rather than simply being a list rattled off by someone in the crowd. The inclusion of “Judea” has seemed strange (since Jews are speaking, and they are already in Judea!) as well as its position, leading to many suggested emendations; however, as a separate geographical list it actually makes sense—moving from East (Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia) to West (Anatolian/Asian provinces, Egypt, Lybia, Cyrene and Italy) with Judea in the middle. While still a bit uneven (the final two, Cretans and Arabs, don’t fit in order as well) and not without difficulties, its significance as a list of the (known and relevant) surrounding nations is obvious.
Confusion (v. 12, cf. also vv. 6-7)

The confusion of the crowd is re-iterated, stating that they all were beside themselves (again e)ci/sthmi, lit. “stand out of [one’s mind]” v. 7) and “thoroughly at a loss” (diapore/w). Their summary response is: ti/ qe/lei tou=to ei@nai; (literally “what does this wish to be?”), often translated more conventionally as “what does this mean?”—however a more literal rendering preserves better a sense of the strange, dynamic nature of the situation in which the crowd finds itself: events almost seem to have a will of their own! The ironic, mocking retort that closes the crowd’s response (“they are filled with sweet [wine]!”), of course, serves to lead into Peter’s great Pentecost speech (vv. 14-40). The disciples are indeed “filled” (plh/qw) with the Spirit (v. 4), rather than “filled” (mesto/w, a somewhat cruder verb which can indicate “stuffed”, “intoxicated”) with ordinary wine.

Outline 2:

This second chiastic outline builds upon the first (described in detail above):

  • The disciples have returned (turned back) to Jerusalem
    • The Twelve have been reconstituted and are gathered together (in Jerusalem) in one place
      • Jews from all nations (the Dispersion) also are gathered together in Jerusalem
    • They again hear the voice (word of God) in the languages of the nations, spoken by the Twelve and other disciples (echo of the Sinai theophany)
  • The disciples go out from Jerusalem into the nations (even to the Gentiles)

This emphasizes more clearly the theme of the “restoration of Israel”, according to the eschatological imagery of the later Old Testament prophets and Judaism, which involves two related themes:

    1. The return of Israelites (Jews) from exile among the nations—this return is to the Promised Land, and, in particular, to Judah and Jerusalem.
    2. The Nations (Gentiles) come to Judah and Jerusalem, bringing tribute and/or worshiping the true God there.

The first theme, of course, is more prominent in the Pentecost narrative, since the people from the nations in Jerusalem (v. 5) are all devout (eu)labh/$, lit. “taking good/proper [care]”) Jews (perhaps also including proselytes, v. 11). However, the global emphasis—a)po\ panto\$ e&qnou$ tw=n u(po\ to\n ou)rano/n “from every nation under the heaven”—certainly provides an ideological and narrative foundation for the mission to the Gentiles (lit. “the nations”, ta\ e&qnh). I will explore this thematic parallel between Jews and Gentiles, in relation to the early Christian mission, in an upcoming article.

One final point in this regard: the “tongues” (glw=ssai) in the Pentecost narrative relate not only to the restoration of Israel, but, I believe, in a secondary sense, to the restoration of the human race as well. There is almost certainly an echo of the “confusion of tongues” episode from the Tower of Babel episode narrated in Genesis 11:1-9. In traditional terms, humanity (united by language) was dispersed throughout the world (speaking different languages), just as Israel would be dispersed among the nations. The Hebrew verb JWP (pûƒ, “break into pieces, scatter, disperse”) in Gen. 11:4, 8-9 is translated in Greek by diaspei/rw (diaspeírœ, “[sow] seed throughout”, i.e. “scatter [seed]”). In the New Testament, this verb is used only in the book of Acts, and refers to early believers being scattered/dispersed from Judea and Palestine into surrounding countries as a result of persecution (Acts 8:1, 4; 11:19). Ironically, this dispersion sets the stage for the mission to Jews (and Gentiles) in the wider world. Also ironic is the way that another division (of the 120 disciples) into separate languages will begin the process that (re-)unites humanity (Jews and Gentiles both) into a new people (of God). There is a touch of this idea in the eschatology of the Old Testament Prophets, as in Zephaniah 3:9:

“For then I will turn over the peoples to a purified/polished lip [i.e. language/speech] (for) all of them to call on the name of YHWH, to serve him (together with) one shoulder.”

A final touch of irony: the “confusion” (ll^B*, “mix [together]”; LXX sugxe/w, “pour together”) of tongues in Gen 11:7-9 is healed and reversed (symbolically) with a new “confusion” (Acts 2:6, same Greek verb sugxe/w) as the crowd (of Jews from the nations) comes together (sune/rxomai) at the marvellous sound (lit. “voice” fwnh/) which speaks in different individual languages (dia/lektoi) at once. In response, though still confused, the crowd speaks with a united voice (in vv. 7-11)—though a literary device, it is one of considerable theological and spiritual significance, for it presents an Israel united again in one place (Jerusalem) to hear the word of God.

May 25: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (Pt 3)

    1. The Spirit comes upon people, including (and especially) the primary association with baptism.
    2. The Spirit fills people, usually in the context of inspired (prophetic) speech
    3. The Spirit leads/guides people, including passages which use the specific phrase “in the Spirit”

Today I am exploring the last of the three principal themes involving the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, listed above (see the prior notes on 1 and 2).

Guided/Led by the Spirit (“in the Spirit”)

This theme is already set in the portion of the Infancy Narrative involving Simeon, who, like John and his parents (Zechariah/Elizabeth) are transitional figures in the Gospel—representing the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new. In Lk 2:27, it is said that Simeon “came into the Temple in the Spirit [e)n tw=| pneu/mati]”—this presumably indicates a state of inspiration (cf. vv. 25-26 and the oracles in vv. 29-32, 34-35), but also that he was led into the Temple at just the right moment to encounter the child Jesus. This idea is expressed much more clearly in the case of Jesus himself, at the beginning of his ministry. Previously, I have noted the precise way the references to the Spirit help to structure the narrative in chapters 3-4:

    • Lk 3:22—The Holy Spirit came down upon [e)pi/] him (Baptism/Anointing)
      • Lk 4:1a—He turned back [u(pe/streyen] full of the Spirit
        • Lk 4:1b-2in the Spirit in the desert—being led by the Spirit—testing by the Devil
      • Lk 4:14—He turned back [u(pe/streyen] in the power of the Spirit
    • Lk 4:18—The Spirit of the Lord is upon [e)pi/] him (Anointing)

Note especially the three central references to Jesus being led by the Spirit:

    • full of the holy Spirit he turned back…” (v. 1a)
    • “and he was led [h&geto] in the Spirit [e)n tw=| pneu/mati] in the desolate (land)” (v. 1b)
    • “he turned back in the power of the Spirit…” (v. 14)

Clearly, the Spirit is understood as guiding and directing Jesus’ steps. Elsewhere in the Gospel, the Spirit’s guidance is related to inspired speech (proclamation), in two respects:

    • The source of inspiration (“in the Spirit”):
      “In that same hour, he [i.e. Jesus] lept for joy [i.e. rejoiced] in the [holy] Spirit and said…” (Lk 10:21)
    • Inspiration as teaching:
      (Jesus to his disciples): “…for (the) holy Spirit will teach you in that hour the (thing)s which it is necessary for you to say” (Lk 12:12)

These principal aspects of the Spirit’s guiding power continue, being developed in the book of Acts:

  • Acts 1:2—Jesus gave commands/instruction to his disciples through the Holy Spirit before he was taken up into heaven
  • Acts 2:4—The disciples speak in “other tongues” as the Spirit gave to them the ability to speak forth; this prefigures the believers fulfilling a role similar to the inspired Prophets of old (cf. Acts 1:16; 4:8, 25, 31; 11:28; 21:11; 28:25, etc). Speaking in foreign tongues also symbolizes the mission of the disciples out into the wider Greco-Roman (Gentile) world.
  • The Spirit gives direct communication to the disciples/apostles, especially in regard to the mission to the Gentiles—Acts 8:29; 10:44; 11:12; 13:2; 15:28
  • Acts 8:29ff—The Spirit guides and directs Philip in his missionary travels:
    —”And the Spirit said to Philip…” (v. 29), directing him to the Ethiopian official
    —”And when they stepped up out of the water, (the) Spirit of the Lord snatched (up) Philip and the (Ethiopian) chamber-official did not see him any longer” (v. 39)
  • Acts 13:2ff—The Spirit similarly provides guidance to Paul (and Barnabas, etc) throughout his journeys, cf. especially Acts 13:4; 16:6-7; 19:21; 20:22-23; 21:4, 11.
  • As a related (secondary) theme, we should mention references to the Spirit in the specific context of persecution or opposition, etc, to the disciples’ preaching and missionary work—Acts 4:31; 5:3, 9; 6:10; 7:51; 8:18ff; 13:9; cf. Luke 12:10-12.

In regard to these references, it is worth noting that the role of the Spirit takes on even greater prominence in the so-called “Western” version of the book of Acts, which I will discuss in the next daily note.