 
# Exploring the Word of God  
Acts of the Apostles  
Volume 2: Acts Chapters 4–7

By Paul Kroll

Copyright 2012 Grace Communion International

Published by Grace Communion International

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com   
The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Artwork by Ken Tunell. Copyright Grace Communion International.

Table of Contents

Acts 4: The Jerusalem Ministry of Peter and John (Acts 3:1-4:22, continued)

The Church in Jerusalem (Acts 4:23-5:16)

Acts 5: The Jerusalem Church, continued

Persecution Strikes the Church (Acts 5:16-8:3)

Acts 6: Persecution Strikes the Church, continued

Acts 7: Persecution Strikes the Church, part 3

About the author

About the publisher

Grace Communion Seminary

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

## Acts Chapter 4: The Jerusalem Ministry of Peter and John  
Acts 3:1-4:22, continued

### Sadducees vs. apostles (4:1-2)

Luke now begins to develop an important theme of Acts: the reason for and extent of the Jewish opposition to the gospel message. He tells how the apostles and evangelists who preached about Christ came into conflict with the Jewish religious leaders, first in Jerusalem and then in other major cities of the Roman Empire. As chapter 4 begins, a group of priests and Sadducees enter the scene and interrupt Peter's speech. (John is mentioned six times in this chapter as participating in the events, but Luke doesn't record a word of what John said.)

The religious leaders are accompanied by "the captain of the temple guard," and probably some of his policemen (4:1). The captain and his officers (who were Levites) patrolled the temple grounds and kept order in the temple precincts. For example, they would make sure that no Gentile entered the parts of the temple forbidden to Gentiles. They guarded the temple gates and treasures. The captain, a priest, was an influential person and was next in rank to the high priest. [Josephus, _Wars_ 2:409-10; 6:294.]

The Sadducees, one of the sects or divisions of Judaism, are mentioned three times in Acts (4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8). Most of the high priestly families belonged to this religious party. Every high priest from the reign of Herod until the war of A.D. 66-70 were Sadducees. The high priests held their position by the permission of the Roman government, and they benefited from the status quo. Hence they collaborated with the Roman authorities, and were opposed to any religious or national movement that might threaten their position (John 11:47-48). They were descended from the Hasmoneans [The Hasmoneans were Jewish priest-kings who successfully rebelled against the Seleucid Empire and ruled an independent Jewish kingdom 140-63 b.c.] , and looked back to them as the family who inaugurated the Messianic Age. [ _Jubilees_ 23:23-30; 31:9-20; 1 Maccabees 14:4-15, 41.]

The Sadducees claimed to be guardians of orthodoxy and they opposed innovative teachings. They refused to speculate about angels or demons, and refused to accept the doctrine of the resurrection (Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). Josephus gives us important details about how this sect's theology differed from that of the Pharisees. [Josephus, _Wars_ 2:119, 164-166; _Antiquities_ 13:171-173, 297-298; 18:11, 16-17. There is no surviving evidence from the Sadducees themselves about their beliefs; they were apparently all killed in the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70.]

### Apostles imprisoned

Given the position and beliefs of the Sadducees, it's easy to understand why they opposed Jesus and brought about his death. They wrongly perceived him as a revolutionary who would bring reprisals from Rome on the religious leaders and the nation (John 11:48). Not only that, Jesus seemed to be encouraging a fundamental change in the function of the temple (Luke 19:45-48; John 4:21, 23). The Sadducees thought they had gotten rid of Jesus by having him crucified. But here were his followers — the apostles — teaching about Jesus and the resurrection of the dead (4:2). It's no wonder the Sadducees are exasperated.

For one thing, the apostles are "teaching the people." The Sadducees thought that teaching should be done only by people who were specially trained and authorized. In their eyes, the apostles are teaching a heresy (the resurrection). To make matters worse, Peter and John are encouraging people to become followers of Jesus, whom the leaders had only recently succeeded in getting out of the way.

To put a stop to this situation, the Sadducees order the temple police to seize Peter and John. The Roman government allowed the Jews limited jurisdiction over temple matters, and this included imprisoning and punishing people who violate its regulations. Because it was late in the day (4:3), the fate of the apostles could not be immediately decided, so they were held in the jail administered by the temple police. In spite of being interrupted in their preaching, the apostles' message found fertile ground, and many believed the message about Jesus. Luke says "the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand" (4:4).

Luke probably does not mean that 5,000 men were converted that day. Rather, Luke is saying that the believers now totaled about 5,000 men. [Luke used the Greek word _andron,_ which refers specifically to adult males, as opposed to _anthropon,_ which would mean "people."] The congregation would have included several thousand women and children, too (see Matthew 14:21), perhaps totaling about 20,000. Some commentators say that this figure seems to be way out of proportion to the population of Jerusalem at the time. Estimates of Jerusalem's population range between 25,000 and 250,000. [Josephus claimed it was over 2.5 million, but this is thought to be far too high ( _Wars_ 2:280-283; 6:420-427).]

It's doubtful that we can fix Jerusalem's population with any certainty. Doubting Luke's figure on the basis of dubious population estimates seems pointless. Perhaps Jerusalem's population was larger than suspected, or a larger portion of the city was converted than assumed. It's also possible that Luke's estimate of the number of believers included the country districts and surrounding villages.

### Sanhedrin meets (4:5-6)

The next day, the council of Jewish religious and civic elders met to decide what to do with Peter and John (4:5). The Sadducees may have been the official rulers over Jewish affairs, but they were a minority party. They could govern only through the Sanhedrin ( _synedrion,_ "council"), the supreme court and senate. Though the Sadducees made up the majority on the council, Josephus tells us they often had to defer to Pharisaic opinion. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 18:16-17; Acts 5:34.] That's because the Sadducees were disliked by the common people, while the Pharisees were held in high regard.

The Sanhedrin was composed of three groups of people. The first were the rulers, the high priests. The second were the elders, men of high community standing. The third group was composed of teachers of the law, usually Pharisees or scribes. The Sanhedrin had 71 members. It included the high priest and 70 other influential members of the Jewish religious community. The Sanhedrin had jurisdiction in cases involving matters relevant to Jewish affairs. Where capital punishment was to be administered, the Sanhedrin was required to receive the permission of the Roman procurator (John 18:31).

Luke makes the point that the Sadducean element that was about to condemn the apostles was heavily represented in the Sanhedrin. The early opponents to the gospel message came mainly from the priestly and Sadducean ranks (5:26). Annas the high priest was there, as well as Caiaphas, John, Alexander and other men of the high priest's family (4:6). Annas was high priest for nine years, from A.D. 6-15. He continued to have great influence for many years after his years in office were over. The New Testament writers show him to be the real power behind the scenes (Luke 3:2; John 18:13-24).

Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas. He was high priest for 18 years (A.D. 18-36). He had the title of high priest when the events of Acts 4 took place. But Annas was of such influence that he seemed to be making the important decisions. Annas, though he did not then have the title of high priest, may have (as the head of the family) retained the presidency of the Sanhedrin. The ruling high priest was usually the president. [Acts 5:17; 7:1; 9:1; 22:5; 23:2, 4; 24:1.] Whatever the case, Luke calls Annas the high priest, perhaps in the sense of a high priest emeritus (4:6). Annas is making the decisions the high priest would make, at least as Sanhedrin president. Now, he and the other Sanhedrin members are about to judge the apostles.

### By what power? (4:7)

As people interested in political power, it is not strange that the Sanhedrin members ask Peter and John: "By what power or what name did you do this?" (4:7). In other words, "Who said you could do this — who is your leader?"

The apostles are faced with the same issue as Jesus had been. Jesus had also been teaching at the temple when he was confronted by the same general group of chief priests and teachers of the law. They had asked Jesus: "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things..." (Luke 20:1-2). Now, months later, the priests and teachers are faced with "the Jesus question" all over again, even though the ringleader had been killed.

The Sanhedrin is not too pleased with the apostles, but on what grounds are they to punish Peter and John? They can't accuse the apostles of faking a healing. The evidence of the lame man jumping and leaping is incontrovertible. He is known by everyone, for he was over 40 years old, and had been begging at the temple for many years (4:22). His sudden loss of lameness can't be explained away as a delusion or secret healing process. Perhaps the apostles have an unlawful agenda in mind (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Perhaps they are healing through the power of the devil. This is what Jesus was accused of doing (Luke 11:14-20). Thus, the Sanhedrin's question: "By what power or what name did you do this?" (4:7).

There is an irony in the apostles' arrest. Peter and John are arrested for teaching about Jesus' resurrection, but they are questioned about the healing. The Sanhedrin did not want to discuss the resurrection of Jesus, partly because Pharisees were a significant minority of the Sanhedrin, and they believed in a resurrection. Although they did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected, they couldn't disprove it. Too many strange events surrounding Jesus' life and death — including the empty tomb — would be sure to come up if they opened up this can of worms. F.F. Bruce wrote:

#### It is particularly striking that neither on this nor on any subsequent occasion did the authorities take any serious action to disprove the apostles' central affirmation — the resurrection of Jesus. Had it seemed possible to refute them on this point, how eagerly would the opportunity have been seized!... The body of Jesus had vanished so completely that all the resources at their command could not produce it. The disappearance of his body, to be sure, was far from proving his resurrection, but the production of his body would have effectively disproved it. [Bruce, _The Book of Acts,_ The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Rev. ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 96.]

### Healed by the name of Jesus (4:8-10)

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, answers the Sanhedrin's questions and accusations by facing the council with the reality of a glorified Christ. This recalls Jesus' saying, that when they are brought before kings and governors, he will give them a wisdom none of their adversaries can gainsay (Luke 21:12-15).

Peter denies that he and John perform magic, or that they are involved with evil spirits, or that the cure was a hoax. The man was healed by the "name of Jesus Christ," pure and simple (4:10). Peter pulls no punches, and he accuses the leaders of being responsible for Jesus' death. He again insists that Jesus had been resurrected, and it is through his power that the lame beggar was healed. In short, Peter's speech became another declaration of Jesus' messiahship.

### The "stone" rejected (4:11-12)

Peter next cites an Old Testament scripture as a "proof-text" that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Jesus is "the stone you builders rejected..." (Psalm 118:22). Jesus used the same scripture to refer to his messiahship (Mark 12:10-11; Luke 20:17-18), setting the example for the apostles. This stone motif is used in other New Testament writings as well. [Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4-8.]

In its original setting in Psalm 118, the "rejected stone" may have referred to Israel, hated by the nations but chosen by God. The builders who rejected the stone as unfit would most likely be other nations who built their own empires and worshipped their own gods. But Jesus, and Peter here in Acts, brands the Jewish religious leaders as "the builders." They had built their own religious structures, beliefs and empire, and now they were rejecting the truth about salvation and the One who brought its message, Jesus.

"The cornerstone" is more literally in Greek "head of [the] corner," _kephale gonias._ It refers to the capstone or keystone that joins the sides of an arch at the top. This stone is essential for holding the arch together, and is placed at its highest point and head. This capstone or "cornerstone" is essential for completing the arch. Just as there is only one capstone in an arch, Jesus Christ is the unique person who makes salvation possible. Apart from Jesus, there is no spiritual building, or church, because there is no salvation. "Salvation is found in no one else," insisted Peter, "for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (4:12).

### Unschooled apostles (4:13-14)

Peter is using some masterful biblical argumentation, usually reserved for trained rabbis. The Sanhedrin is astonished by this because the apostles are "unschooled, ordinary men" (4:13). People expressed the same surprise about Jesus: "How did this man get such learning without having been taught?" (John 7:15). The Jewish leaders don't necessarily regard Peter and John as ignorant and illiterate. The apostles are considered "unschooled" _in terms of rabbinic training,_ that is, without professional qualifications. They are "ordinary" (Greek, _idiotai_ ) in the sense of being "commoners" or "laymen," or "untrained" in matters of Jewish law. The religious leaders fault _the people_ for their lack of expertise and understanding of Torah (which ironically means that their _teachers_ were failing to do their job). In one case, the Pharisees said of those ordinary folks who believed in Christ: "this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them" (John 7:49).

Meanwhile, the Sanhedrin is getting nowhere with Peter and John. In fact, the council members are to some degree on the defensive. The apostles are using sophisticated rabbinic reasoning to force a consideration of Jesus as Messiah. How like Jesus they seemed in their ability to parry questions and avoid traps! It dawned on the council that the apostles must have learned the "tricks" of argumentation from their teacher — and so they take note "that these men had been with Jesus" (4:13).

The council has another problem: That healed beggar is still there. But why is he there the next day? Had he been arrested? Did he want to be a witness for the apostles? Luke doesn't tell us. Whatever the case, the beggar's presence is evidence of Jesus' healing power. In a similar situation, Jesus had healed a man who had been born blind. His very presence reminded the religious community that Jesus had a power that could not be denied (John 9). Now another man born with an infirmity is healed. And he is here, still a witness. How could the Sanhedrin punish the apostles when the proof of Jesus' power is plainly in their presence?

### The Sanhedrin confers (4:15-18)

The Sanhedrin members withdraw into a private session to hammer out a plan regarding the apostles. They see the quandary they are in, and admit that Peter and John "have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it" (4:16).

Some readers today wonder, How did Luke find out what happened in the private meeting? When 70 people are at the meeting, it is difficult to keep the proceedings a secret — someone is going to talk about it, and eventually one of those people "in the know" became a Christian. Perhaps the drift of the discussion was inferred from what the council said when Peter and John were brought back. Perhaps Saul (Paul) was at the council, and he could have told Luke what happened. John had friends in the high priestly family, and he could have also learned what happened. There are many ways for "secret" information to be made public.

The apostles claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and this has been publicly confirmed by the healing of the lame man. The healing was done in Jesus' name, and a dead man cannot do anything. No wonder the Sanhedrin members ask themselves, in perplexity: "What are we going to do with these men?" (4:16).

### Warned not to speak (4:17-22)

The council decides to warn the apostles not to speak about Jesus again. If Peter and John do so, they will be in violation of the law. The council is providing itself with a legal basis for further action — and it will soon be needed, as we discover in the next chapter. Even now, it must be obvious to the Sanhedrin that the apostles will not go away quietly. When the council calls them in and commands them "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus," they are rebuffed (4:18). Peter and John tell the Sanhedrin that they will obey God, not the Sanhedrin. They will continue to witness to Jesus.

This brings more threats from the Sanhedrin, but they can't punish the apostles because the people are praising God for a miracle. This same council of chief priests and elders had faced a similar problem in the case of Jesus. They couldn't punish him openly, for as they said, "There may be a riot among the people" (Matthew 26:5).

back to table of contents

## The Church in Jerusalem (Acts 4:23-5:16)

### The believers' prayer (4:23)

So far in Acts, Luke has described Peter's preaching to the Jews of Jerusalem. Luke now shifts his focus to give us a glimpse of the apostles' relationship to the Jerusalem church. We see a praying and giving church, full of faith. The apostles (Peter particularly) come in the power of God, performing miraculous signs and wonders.

The next section begins in 4:23 with Peter and John being released by the Sanhedrin. The two apostles then return to the church and tell the congregation about their persecution. The response of the church is to pray about the crisis (4:24). They perceive the danger to themselves, and to their mission of spreading the gospel. The believers realize that they cannot face the power of the Sanhedrin on their own. So they put their faith in God as the Sovereign Lord and the Creator of all. This is how they address him in their communal prayer. The disciples appeal to his power to deliver the church, much in the way that King Hezekiah prayed for the deliverance of Jerusalem (Isaiah 37:16-20).

### David's prayer in Psalm 2 (Acts 4:25-27)

Luke provides a summary of how the church prayed. The congregation offers their prayer based on Psalm 2:1-2. The first thing we notice about the prayer is that God is said to have spoken it "by the Holy Spirit through the mouth" of David (Acts 4:25). David may have written the words, Luke was saying, but they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

The church understands that the threats of the council are not directed against them personally. That's clear from their appeal to Psalm 2, which speaks of nations and kings plotting against God and his Anointed One. The Jewish persecution of the apostles was actually aimed at God and his Messiah. Psalm 2 refers to the Messiah, the Anointed One. There is some indication that by Jesus' day this psalm was being interpreted by Jews as referring to a coming deliverer from David's line. The church applied the psalm to those who had conspired against Jesus, who was God's Anointed One (4:25-26 with 4:27). For the church, the unholy conspiracy involved in Jesus' crucifixion consisted of Herod ("kings of the earth"), Pilate ("the rulers"), the Romans ("the nations"), and the people of Israel in Jerusalem ("the peoples").

This is what is called a "pesher" (from Hebrew _peser,_ "interpretation"). We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls the pesher method of interpreting Scripture was used in the Qumran community. The interpreter takes a text such as Psalm 2:1-2, which in context refers to ancient times, and identifies it with a contemporary figure and/or situation. He said, in effect, "This is the event and the people this scripture is referring to."

This method of interpretation was common within Judaism during Jesus' day, and was used by the early church. It was based on the belief that Scripture, reflecting God's purpose and mind, had cosmic significance for all times and circumstances. It assumes that the original writers (usually prophets) did not understand the full significance of what they wrote about because they were far removed from the events to which their writings referred (1 Peter 1:10-12). The real meanings hidden in the text can be unraveled only by a divinely inspired person (or group) living in the time of the actual events. (Some modern interpreters do something similar, trying to identify contemporary events with various biblical prophecies; the result is almost always wrong.)

### Prayer for boldness (4:28-30)

In this case, the church is saying that Jesus' death and the persecution of God's people were foretold in Scripture. Thus, it is happening with the knowledge of God, who decided beforehand that these things would occur (4:28).

The Jerusalem church's prayer has a selfless aspect. They do not ask for relief from persecution nor judgment against their oppressors. Rather, the church wants to be given _boldness_ to preach the gospel. They ask God to continue to heal, and perform miraculous signs and wonders, so the gospel will have attentive ears (4:29). Of course, the signs and wonders are to occur "through the name of...Jesus" (4:30). In Acts, all things are done through "the name." The gospel is fearlessly preached (9:27), people are baptized (8:16), sins are forgiven (10:43) and demons are cast out (16:18) — all in Jesus' name.

#### The idiom "name of Jesus Christ" is Luke's expression of the presence of Christ, but not in any magical way. Rather, the preached word unleashes the power of the resurrected Christ so that the gap between the earthly Jesus and the resurrected Lord is bridged by the Spirit. [William Willimon, _Acts:_ Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), page 13.]

In this instance, God answers the church's prayer with resounding certainty. Their meeting place shakes as with an earthquake (4:31). Quakes often marked the sign of God's presence in Scripture. [Acts 16:26; Exodus 19:18; Psalm 114:7; Isaiah 6:4; Ezekiel 38:19; Joel 3:16; Amos 9:5; Haggai 2:6.] In this case, God is signifying that his presence will be with the believers as they fulfill the commission to preach the gospel of salvation. God answers the Jerusalem church's prayer for boldness by filling them with the Holy Spirit. The disciples already had the Holy Spirit as a life-changing force. But now they receive a special gift of confidence to proclaim the word of God with added conviction.

### Believers share possessions (4:32-35)

Luke next returns to a subject he introduced earlier (2:44-45) — the sharing of possessions among the believers. In the community of believers at Jerusalem "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had" (4:32). Earlier we were told that the believers "had everything in common" (2:44). They sold possessions and goods, giving "to anyone who had need" (2:45). In this snapshot of church life, Luke illustrates the nature and extent of the Jerusalem believers' concern for one another.

#### For Luke as well as the early Christians, being filled with the Holy Spirit not only concerned proclaiming the Word of God but also sharing possessions with the needy because of believers' oneness in Christ. [Richard Longenecker, "Acts," _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ vol. 9 (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 309.]

Luke illustrates the relationship of gospel-preaching to giving by inserting verse 33 into the middle of the discussion about the believers' shared possessions. This verse speaks of the great power by which the apostles testified to the resurrection of Christ. It might appear to be misplaced, since it discusses a different topic, but it isn't.

Luke indicates that most wealthy believers had a remarkably selfless attitude toward their possessions. They regard their estates as being at the disposal of the community when necessary. No doubt even those of limited means gave what they could to assist less fortunate brothers and sisters. Because of this attitude, "there were no needy persons among" the church members at Jerusalem (4:34).

"From time to time" — when the occasion warranted it — affluent members "who owned land or houses" would sell pieces of property and give the money to the apostles (4:35). The apostles in turn "distributed to anyone who had need." This donating of resources to a common church fund was voluntary. The practice, in various forms, was known among other Jews, especially the Essene sect. Josephus points out that the Essenes required their members to have all property in common — at least as an idealized principle. He wrote that, "It is a law among them [the Essenes], that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order — insomuch, that among them all there is no appearance of poverty or excess of riches, but every one's possessions are intermingled with every other's possessions." [Josephus, _Wars_ 2:122.]

The Jerusalem believers are generous in sharing what they have with other members. However, their sharing is on a voluntary basis; it is not "Christian communism." There is probably a cultural-religious reason why the Jerusalem community has a common fund to help the needy. At this early date, the believers seem to consider themselves as a righteous remnant within Israel. They hold firmly to their national religious practices and institutions, and they feel strongly about certain promises in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Torah they read, "There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you" (Deuteronomy 15:4).

Other Jewish religious groups, such as the Essenes, also thought of themselves in terms of a remnant. They, too, expressed their spiritual oneness by sharing their goods. The Jerusalem church is following cultural norms in sharing their goods on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps more importantly, the church knows of Jesus' command that mutual love should be its distinctive characteristic (John 13:34-35, 15:12). Thus, the believers feel a deep responsibility to care for the physical needs of their spiritual brothers and sisters. This continued to be a concern of the church (Galatians 2:9-10). The early church apparently expected Jesus to return soon. They probably thought that the gospel would be preached to all the Jews around the Roman world in a matter of years, perhaps only one or two decades. Then, "the end" would come. The disciples are therefore not concerned about their long-range needs. The kingdom of God is coming soon, and personal resources are to be used now instead of being stored up.

However, the ideal of generosity that the Jerusalem church attempts to reach in the sharing of goods is soon interrupted. God allows a persecution to come on this congregation that causes its members to be scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1). And as it turns out, perhaps some members gave too much too quickly, resulting in an impoverished Jerusalem church. We get indications from Acts and Paul's writings that the believers in Jerusalem were quite poor in later years. [Acts 11:27-30; 24:17; Romans 15:26; Galatians 2:10.] This is not to belittle what they did, and in fact their selflessness was no doubt pleasing to God. The later poverty of the Jerusalem church became a blessing to people who were able to help them (2 Corinthians 9:11). True discipleship is sometimes very costly.

We should not picture all Jerusalem church members as placing all their property in a common fund. This congregation did not form a communal society that required all possessions to be put in a common pot. Donations were given on a _voluntary_ basis. The church members lived in their own homes (2:46; 12:12), and thus would have their own household possessions. They were married and had families (1 Corinthians 9:5; Acts 5:1-11). The well-to-do among the Jerusalem church "from _time to time_ " sold property (4:34). They did not simply sell everything and pool all the money. Rather, they sold it off piece by piece, as needed. They continued to live in their own houses but were willing to give to the community when needs arose.

###

### Barnabas sells a field (4:36-37)

Luke next introduces a man named Joseph, a Levite (4:36). He was named Barnabas by the apostles, which Luke says means "Son of Encouragement." The problem is that the word _Barnabas_ actually means something like "Son of Nebo" (Bar-nabas). Luke's interpretation of the name has been translated as "Son of exhortation," or "of consolation" or "of encouragement." "Son of Encouragement" certainly fits the character of Barnabas (9:27; 11:23; 12:25; 15:37).

The family of Barnabas originally came from Cyprus, and he may have owned property on the island, but he has close ties to Judea. John Mark is his cousin (Colossians 4:10), and he apparently lives with his mother in her home in Jerusalem (12:12). Barnabas will be an important figure in Luke's story of the church's expansion. He appears to be a link between the Jewish and Gentile worlds. [Acts 9:27; 11:22-30; 13:1-14:28; 15:2-4, 12, 22, 36-41; 1 Corinthians 9:6.] Barnabas is introduced here for two reasons. We are alerted to his future role in the spread of the gospel. He is also a fitting example of how the Jerusalem believers share their possessions.

Barnabas "sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet" (4:37). He is held up for special commendation in this regard, showing that the selling of property and donating the proceeds was voluntary. It was not required of all church members. Barnabas will later play a key role in mediating between a zealous Paul and a skeptical Jerusalem church that does not trust him (9:25). He will also be sent as an emissary to look into matters in the Antioch church. There he will put the stamp of approval for the preaching the gospel to Gentiles in Antioch (9:22-23). Luke assures his readers that Barnabas is submissive to the Twelve, and he can be trusted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Acts 5: The Jerusalem Church, continued

### Ananias and Sapphira (5:1)

In chapter 4, Luke painted an idealistic portrait of the Jerusalem church as a congregation of faithful (4:23-31) and loving (4:32-35) believers. He cited the example of Barnabas, who epitomized both the love and faith of this congregation (4:36-37). But Luke wants to give his readers a more complete view of the situation in the church. In the beginning of chapter 5 Luke provides an example that showed the church to be less-than-perfect.

Luke recounts what must have been a well-known but tragic story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit (5:3). The story (5:1-11) actually continues Luke's account of how the believers shared their possessions, which he ended with the example of a generous Barnabas. But in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, we see another side of the church.

What Luke did was present two cases that stand in opposition to each other. Barnabas is a concerned, faithful and a true disciple; Ananias and Sapphira are selfish, faithless liars. The incident shows that the church, even in its earliest days, was not a community of perfect people. Perhaps Luke tells this story to warn his readers not to overestimate the spiritual perfection of the first believers. The example also serves as a warning to the church. The best-intentioned good works of human beings — which the generous giving illustrated — can have unintended negative side effects. In short, the church is always an imperfect, sinning body that daily needs the forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

### Kept part of the money (5:2-4)

The problem of Ananias and Sapphira is that they wanted to receive a reputation for a greater personal sacrifice than they actually made. The church's well-intentioned sharing of goods probably led to a considerable amount of subtle pressure on members to make donations. Perhaps Ananias and Sapphira got caught up in a band-wagon effect. The couple wanted to appear as outstanding church members, but they didn't want to part with their possessions. In order to have both, they pretended to give the full price of the sale of their property to the apostles. But they secretly kept part of the money for themselves. Thus, they tried to deceive the community.

Before we go on, Luke allows us to once more understand that the Jerusalem church was not practicing mandatory communism. Peter tells Ananias: "Didn't it [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" (5:4). Ananias was perfectly free to keep or sell his property as he thought fit. If he sold his property, he could have kept all the money for himself. The sin of Ananias was not in keeping his money, but in lying to the community, and hence, to the Holy Spirit.

#### The sin of which Ananias was guilty was hypocrisy, a sin which received from Jesus the most scathing condemnation. Ananias was under no obligation to sell his land at all, or to hand over the proceeds, but having done both he alleged that all the money he had obtained was now being given magnanimously for the relief of the poorer members of the community, whereas in fact he had slyly retrained part of it for his own use. His wife as a party to the fraud. [E. William Neil, _The Acts of the Apostles,_ The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), page 94.]

Luke tells us that Ananias with the full knowledge of his wife was keeping "part of the money for himself" (5:2). The verb translated "kept back" (Greek, _nosphizein_ ) occurs rarely in the New Testament (Acts 5:2, 3; Titus 2:10). But its meaning is clear. The Septuagint uses the same root verb to describe Achan's stealing part of the plunder from Jericho. God said that the spoils were sacred and should be placed into the treasury (Joshua 6:18-19; 7:1, 11). By taking some of the plunder for himself, Achan had acted unfaithfully — and had stolen and lied.

Perhaps Luke purposely uses the same verb ( _nosphizein_ ) to describe the action of Ananias, so that readers who know the Old Testament examples would make the comparison and learn the lesson. William Neil writes, "The story of Ananias is to the book of Acts what the story of Achan is to the book of Joshua. In both narratives an act of deceit interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God." [Ibid.]

Both incidents draw an immediate and extreme judgment of God. The advance of ancient Israel was stopped by Achan's sin. Now the sin of Ananias threatens to stop the progress of the gospel and destroy the integrity of the community.

The Jerusalem church clearly sees the lesson in the death of Ananias and Sapphira (5:11). It is richly schooled in the Holy Scriptures and would immediately see the connection between Ananias and Achan. In each case, the sin must be removed so the community can move forward. There are differences between the two accounts, and we should not press the analogy too far. For example, Achan confessed his bad deed (Joshua 7:19) and was stoned to death (verse 25). Neither was true in the case of Ananias.

### Lied to the Holy Spirit (5:3-4)

Somehow Peter learns that Ananias kept part of the money, even though he claims to have given all of it. Peter then confronts Ananias with his deceit. On one level, Peter is shown as having power to see into human hearts. He is able to perceive Ananias' motivation. In the same way, Peter later perceives that Simon the Samaritan was full of bitterness (8:23). Luke is portraying the apostles as having the same ability as Jesus to grasp what humans are thinking in terms of whether their thoughts are godly or satanic. In his Gospel, Luke points out Jesus' ability in this regard on several occasions. [Luke 5:22; 7:39-40; 9:46-47; 24:37-38.]

However, we shouldn't overstate Peter's omniscience. It's possible that others in the church had learned about the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira, and Peter learned about it from them. After checking out the allegation and being sure of its truthfulness, he confronts first Ananias and then Sapphira with the deceit.

Ananias' deceit is the result of Satan filling his heart (5:3). Luke had previously described the betrayal of Jesus by Judas as Satan entering his heart (Luke 22:3). The couple's fraudulent action was also defined as lying to and testing the Holy Spirit (5:3), perhaps in the sense of seeing how much they could get away with. Similarly, the ancient Israelites in the wilderness were guilty of trying to test God (Exodus 17:2; Deuteronomy 6:16). To lie to the Spirit is the same as lying to God and the risen Christ. Peter says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit (5:3) and to God (5:4), and this is the same as testing "the Spirit of _the Lord_ " (5:9). The three are equated as being one and the same: God, Spirit, and the Lord—Father, Spirit, and the Son.

Throughout Acts, Luke emphasizes that the Holy Spirit is guiding the new church at every turn. But Ananias and Sapphira's lie and greed threaten to undercut this. God therefore shows that the Holy Spirit is present with the church, and that this has solemn implications for the disciples. Christians are warned to be careful in how they relate to the Holy Spirit. They can "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30) and "do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thessalonians 5:19). These are sins that should be avoided. They are sins for which Christians find forgiveness in Christ, but we should not minimize such affronts to the Spirit. They are serious.

As in the case of Judas, we are not in a position to judge the ultimate fate of Ananias and Sapphira. Perhaps this incident shows God's supreme judgment on the couple in this life, a tragic discipline, but not a final condemnation (1 Corinthians 5:5; 11:30). The life of the couple is taken, but we do not know whether they rejected salvation itself. The lesson for us is simply that we should not challenge or test God.

While the real sin of Ananias and Sapphira is lying to the Holy Spirit, it is over financial issues that the problem comes to a head. The story is about money and greed. Luke often deals with economic issues and how they relate to the Christian. It is Luke who gives us parables that deal with the proper use of money. They include the parables of the Debtors (Luke 7:41-43); the Good Samaritan (10:29-37); the Rich Fool (12:16-21); the Unjust Steward (16:1-8); the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31); and the Pounds (19:11-27). Luke writes of the rich young nobleman who chooses riches over Jesus (Luke 18:18-23) and the widow who donates to God all that she had to live on (Luke 21:1-4).

Later, Luke notes that a riot occurs after Paul's preaching interferes with some business interests (19:21-41). Simon the Samaritan reveals his true heart when he tries to buy the Spirit with money (8:9-24). In Macedonia, Paul and Silas are thrown in jail after depriving some slave owners of their means of livelihood (16:16-34). He is kept in jail because Felix wants a bribe (24:26).

### Ananias and Sapphire die (5:5-10)

The story of Ananias and Sapphira ends on a tragic note. As soon as Peter finishes telling Ananias the enormity of his sin, Ananias dies (5:5). While Luke doesn't say that God struck him down, this is what the context implies. The death of Ananias is meant to be seen as a divine judgment on his sin of lying to the Spirit. Luke does not say the sentence of death came from Peter, as some claim. Luke wants us to see his death not as the judgment of Peter, but of God. Peter probably intends to rebuke Ananias for his terrible sin, and hope for his repentance. Peter is probably as shocked as we are that Ananias drops dead before his eyes. "Great fear seized all who heard what had happened" (5:5) — and that probably includes Peter.

Immediately after Ananias dies, his body is wrapped and buried. His wife Sapphira, unaware of what happened to her husband, arrives about three hours later, and is confronted by Peter. He questions her about the amount of the proceeds of the sale, no doubt hoping that she will be honest. But when he asks her whether she and her husband sold the land for the amount they had handed over, she says yes (5:8). She repeats her husband's falsehood. Peter, knowing God's judgment on Ananias, probably feels confident that the same one awaits Sapphira. He tells her that the men who buried her husband would also carry her out (5:9), and Sapphira dies (5:10).

The account of this couple's death, especially that of Sapphira, has puzzled and even offended many commentators. Richard Longenecker has summarized their objections:

#### Probably no account in Acts has provoked more wrath from critics than this one has. Commentators have complained about the difficulty of accepting the death of both husband and wife under such circumstances and have questioned Peter's ethics in not giving them an opportunity for repentance and in not telling Sapphira of her husband's death. Even more difficult for many is the way the story portrays Peter, who appears to be without the compassion or restraint of his Lord. Jesus' relations with even Judas, whose sin was a thousand times more odious, certainly were not on this level. Many have felt it impossible for a leader of the early church to have shown such harshness over a relatively "slight" offence and have doubted that the church would have wanted to preserve such an account. Many, therefore, have taken this to be a fictitious story. [Longenecker, 314.]

The problem is partially solved if we do not read into the story things that are not there. The situation was likely the following. Peter learns from someone in the community that Ananias and Sapphira are trying to pass off part of the sale price as the whole amount. Ananias and Sapphira may have told someone of this, or it may have been obvious to someone who knew about real estate values in the area.

Peter does not necessarily need any special knowledge in the matter. After finding out the truth of the accusation, he is naturally indignant about this attempted deception, which blights the community spirit. As a spiritual leader, he goes to Ananias to reprove him for lying, in effect, to the Holy Spirit. There is no indication that Peter intends to pronounce a curse of death on him. He is probably as stunned as anyone else when Ananias drops dead after the rebuke. However, the lesson is not lost on Peter. He surmises that God caused this, and he concludes that the same judgment will befall Sapphira, a co-conspirator. Her only hope is to admit the truth, but when she does not, Peter says that she will experience the same result as her husband. Peter simply tells her what her fate will be, and she dies. Peter is not personally handing out a curse of death to either husband or wife. Ananias and Sapphira die because God, not Peter, causes it.

From time to time in the Old Testament, God acts to carry out a sudden sentence of death on various individuals. A man named Uzzah is killed for violating the law about touching the ark (2 Samuel 6:3-7). Two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, are struck down for offering strange fire in the tabernacle (Leviticus 10:3). Even their father Aaron is told not to mourn for them. We are used to God dealing sharply with the sinful and rebellious Israelites. But we may be shocked that Ananias and Sapphira are struck down so abruptly and with finality. Perhaps we can understand why this happened if we remember the context of the times. The New Testament church began with the unmistakable power of God's Spirit. The fledgling community is barely getting off the ground when its integrity is threatened by selfish deceit. It needs to learn that sin is no trifling matter. How can the church be an example of godliness and good works, if greed and lying are allowed to run rampant in the community?

#### The way Ananias and Sapphira attempted to reach their goals was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire mission of the church off course. Like the act of Achan, this episode was pivotal in the life and mission of God's people, for the whole enterprise was threatened at its start. [Ibid.]

The death of Ananias and Sapphira serves as a powerful example of the presence of God in the community of believers. "Great fear seized all who heard what had happened" (5:5). After this, no one would be tempted to gain a reputation for generosity by lying about it — although before this, the temptation was probably not unique to Ananias and Sapphira.

Hebrews tells us that while God is infinite love and has tremendous patience, he also judges his people (Hebrews 10:31). As another example, Paul tells the Corinthians to excommunicate a man who was having sexual relations with his stepmother. The hope was that he would repent (which he did) and re-enter the community of the saints (1 Corinthians 5:5).

Ananias and Sapphira are killed because they do not repent. They are given an opportunity to tell Peter the correct amount of the sale. But they persist in their lie. But the account says nothing of the couple's future salvation. We have no way to answer the question of their fate except to say it is in God's hands.

### The church of God (5:11)

When Sapphira dies, the meaning of God's judgment on this couple is not lost on the church. Luke again writes of the effect of the tragic event, saying, "Great fear seized the whole church" (5:11). Here, in the context of a crisis in the Christian community in Jerusalem, Luke uses the Greek word _ekklesia_ ("church") for the first time to designate the congregation of God's people. From here on out, Luke uses it to define both the universal body of Christian believers and local congregations. The same usage occurs in Paul's epistles. [Acts 7:38; 8:1; 9:31; 11:22; 13:1; 14:23; 15:22, 41; 16:5; 19:32, 40; 20:28. For examples from Paul, see 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, and many others.]

The Jews used _ekklesia_ to refer to the assembly of Israel, the nation that was called God's people. [See the Septuagint in such places as Deuteronomy 9:10; Joshua 9:2; and Psalm 21:22.] The Jews were using the Greek _synagoge_ (14:1) to define their meetings and the place in which they met, so that was not a good word for Christians to use in defining their group. _Ekklesia,_ meaning an assembly, was a logical choice to define those who are called to be a new people of God.

In a secular sense, _ekklesia_ referred to the citizen-assembly of a Greek city. In the Christian context it denotes the assembly of believers in Jesus. The term has something of the old and the new about it. The use of _ekklesia_ indicates the early Christians' sense of continuity with old Israel, as a people of God. However, the Christians were a new people of God — those who had accepted Jesus as Israel's long-awaited Messiah.

Unfortunately, the word "church" has come to have connotations that _ekklesia_ did not. We speak of "going to church," when in biblical usage, it is the "church" that comes together to a place of worship. _Ekklesia_ referred to the people who meet together, not the place in which they meet. In some ways, "congregation" would be a better translation. It would make it clear that what is in view is an assembly of believers, not a place or a legal organization.

### Signs and wonders (5:12)

Verses 12–16 contain another of Luke's summary statements about the spreading of the gospel and growth of the church. Here we catch a cameo-like glimpse of the power of the apostles and the growing community of believers in Jerusalem. Luke writes that "the apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people" (5:12). Earlier, the church prayed that God would show his power among the people in healings, signs and wonders (4:30). This section tells us God answered that prayer.

The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were also examples of supernatural signs. As the miracles of healing were a positive sign that the kingdom of God had arrived, so the miraculous nature of Ananias and Sapphira's death was a negative sign of the same reality. The healing miracles were so stunning that sick people who simply lay under Peter's shadow were cured (5:15). Jesus had said the apostles would do greater works than he did, and his prophecy was coming true.

Later, Luke writes that God did "extraordinary miracles through Paul" (19:11). Pieces of cloth that had been touched by Paul would be taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured. Luke is telling his readers that like Jesus, the apostles are able to heal sufferers at a distance (Matthew 8:5-13; Mark 7:24-30). It was an extraordinary time in the church when God's power was dramatically and openly felt. Paul's letters confirm this fact, that God's overwhelming power was at work in the young church. [1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; and also Hebrews 2:3-4.]

### The church grows (5:13-16)

Meanwhile, as the apostles perform miracles and spread the gospel, the church regularly meets in Solomon's Colonnade, which was part of the temple complex. The church is held in such reverence and awe because of the miracles that "no one else dared join them" (5:13). They did not want to pretend to believe unless they actually did. The expression in Greek translated "no one else" or "the rest" seems to have been a technical term for non-believers (Luke 8:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 5:6). That may be its sense here. However, in verse 14, Luke says, "More and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number."

On the surface, this seems to be a contradiction. Were no others joining the Christian community, or were more being added? What these two verses probably mean is that unbelieving Jews in general were so frightened by the supernatural power of the apostles that they stayed away from the Christians and didn't bother them. William Barclay has an interesting translation of verse 13 that catches this sense of things: "Of the others no one dared to meddle with them." The death of Ananias and Sapphira had caused great fear. It and the other miracles served to keep unbelievers and persecutors at arm's length. However, for those individuals whose minds were open to the Holy Spirit, such miraculous occurrences would have been magnets drawing them to the Christian community in Jerusalem.

Luke tells us that the reach of the church and gospel message is spreading to the towns surrounding Jerusalem (5:16). This is a new feature of the mission. The way is being prepared for the gospel to advance into all Judea. The work of God is becoming more powerful and spreading. However, the effectiveness of the apostles' witness, both in word and deed, impels the Jewish religious authorities to once more take action against them.

back to table of contents

## Persecution Strikes the Church (Acts 5:16–8:3)

### Arrested and freed (5:17-20)

While most non-believing Jews are afraid to meddle with the Christian community in Jerusalem, the religious leaders are finally driven to action. The church is having success after success, and the high priest and his associates — who were Sadducees — felt threatened. Luke writes that they are "filled with jealousy" (5:17-18). Because of this, the Sanhedrin arrests the apostles and puts them in jail. It appears that all the apostles are involved this time, not just Peter and John. The temple authorities issue no warning, as they did to Peter and John. They simply round them up and throw them into the guardroom, probably in the temple precincts. In essence, the apostles are punished for disobeying the order not to preach in Jesus' name.

But then another miracle occurs. During the night an angel opens the doors of the jail (5:19). Angels often appear in Luke and Acts, acting as intermediaries between humans and God. [See Luke 1:11, 26; 2:9, 13; 22:43; 24:23; Acts 8:26; 10:3, 7, 22; 11:13; 12:7-15, 23; 27:23.] In this case, all the apostles are released through divine intervention. Later in Acts we will see even more dramatic prison miracles, involving Peter (12:6-11) and Paul (16:26-31).

Here the angel tells the apostles to go to the temple courts and continue preaching "about this new life" (5:20). The message the apostles preached includes the resurrection — the new and eternal life made possible by Jesus. The resurrection is the capstone message of the good news (1 Corinthians 15:1-20). The "new life" can also refer to the new life that Christians experience after conversion. Paul explains that believers are baptized into Jesus' death, and are figuratively buried with him in death. But they are also raised with Christ that they "may live a new life" (Romans 6:4).

### Freed by an angel

At daybreak, probably as devout Jews begin to gather for the morning sacrifice and morning prayers, the apostles come into the temple precincts, and they teach the people about Jesus and salvation. Later in the morning, the high priest calls together the Sanhedrin, in order to judge and assign punishment on the apostles. Temple police officers are sent to the jail to bring the apostles to the trial. They are shocked to find that the prisoners are missing even though the jail is fully secured. The officers return to the chief priests with the news of the apostles' escape. While the Sanhedrin is considering these puzzling developments, someone rushes into the assembly and says, "The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people" (5:25).

The situation, while deadly serious, is filled with comedic potential. Luke exploited the irony and humor of the situation, which is evident in his narrative.

#### With the comic speed of an old "Keystone Cops" movie, an angel sets the apostles free, and by daybreak they are back making trouble at the temple. Then follows an even more comic shuttling back and forth from council to jail, back to the council, with the discovery of the apostles busy at the temple, teaching. [Willimon, 56.]

### Brought to the Sanhedrin (5:26-28)

The captain of the temple police and his officers now go to fetch the apostles as they are preaching to the people. No force is used, because the Sanhedrin is afraid the people would stone its members if they arrest the apostles (5:26). The apostles comply with the order and do not resist (Luke 22:50). After they are brought before the Sanhedrin, the high priest berates them for teaching in Jesus' name at the temple. The leaders are especially concerned that they are being singled out as responsible for the death of Jesus. They say that the apostles are "determined to make us guilty of this man's blood" (5:28). They clearly fear a violent insurrection against them.

#### By accusing the Jewish leaders of murdering the Messiah, whom God had then raised from the dead, the Christians were in effect publicly calling for divine retribution. The Jewish leaders regarded the death of Jesus as the result of the legal trial of a malefactor; the Christians were making it out to be an act of murder, and thus claiming that the Jewish leaders were guilty men. [I. Howard Marshall, _Acts,_ Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), page 119.]

While the apostles are placing accountability on those with whom it obviously lies — the Sanhedrin — they are not interested in pointing the finger of blame. They are preaching the forgiveness of sin, not condemnation. We should note that the high priest cannot bring himself to use Jesus' name. Rather, he contemptuously refers to "this man's blood" (5:28). Earlier, he avoided using Jesus' name by using the phrase "in this name." The disdain and hatred for Jesus ran deep.

### The charge answered (5:29-32)

The apostles then respond to the Sanhedrin's threat. In a brief summary of their defense, Luke describes Peter as the spokesman for the others. Nonetheless, all the apostles agree with the argument. They assert that they should obey God rather than human beings (5:29). Since God commanded them to preach about the work of Jesus, that's what they are going to do. Peter and John had affirmed this principle at their first trial, that they are constrained to obey God over human authorities (4:19). Now all the apostles take the same stand.

They were eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection and glorification (2 Peter 1:16-18). Now they are obligated to testify that the one they heard, saw and touched is the Word of life (John 1:1-2). "We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (4:20).

### Hanged on a "tree" (5:30)

Peter begins the apostles' defense by asserting that the God of Israel "raised Jesus from the dead" (5:30). The phrase "from the dead" is not in the Greek — the Greek text simply says that God raised Jesus. Peter may be referring to Jesus' exaltation (5:31). That is, Peter would be saying that the very person the Jews rejected and killed is the person God brought onto the stage of history to fulfill the role of Messiah. God "raised up" or chose Jesus to accomplish his purpose. In any case, the resurrection was the focal point of God's purpose. God had to raise Jesus from death in order to "raise him" to glory and exaltation. The resurrection is the divine vindication of Jesus. This contrasts with his rejection by humans, epitomized by the crucifixion (2:23; 3:14; 4:10).

In Greek, Peter refers to a "tree" ( _xylou_ ) to describe Jesus' crucifixion (5:30). But this doesn't mean Jesus was crucified on a living tree. Luke tells us that the cross was carried through the streets of Jerusalem (Luke 23:26). In Jesus' day, the Greek word _xylon_ was used for objects made from wood, including poles. Luke uses _xylon_ in referring to the clubs carried by those arresting Jesus (Luke 22:52) and the wooden stocks into which Paul was placed (Acts 16:24). A few times in the New Testament, as here in verse 30, _xylon_ is also used for the cross of Jesus (10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24).

The phrase "hanged on a tree" comes from Deuteronomy 21:22-23. In the law of ancient Israel, a person guilty of a capital offense was put to death by stoning. Any such executed criminal was considered to be under God's curse. After his execution, the condemned person's body was hung on a tree during the day, but buried before nightfall. What Peter is saying is that the Jews had inflicted the greatest disgrace on Jesus. They condemned him to death with a capital offense, and then crucified him as a heinous criminal. Paul discusses this paradox of God's chosen vessel being placed under a divine curse to die for the sins of humanity (Galatians 3:10-14, with reference to Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

By using the phrase "hanged on a tree" in this context, Peter highlights the contrast between the people's rejection of Jesus and God's glorification of the One accounted as accursed. "God exalted him [Jesus] to his own right hand as Prince and Savior," said Peter (5:31). Paradoxically, Jesus' rejection and death (and resurrection) is what makes it possible to "bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins" (5:31). Thus, salvation is being offered to the very people who "hanged Jesus on a tree."

### Prince and Savior (5:31)

This is the first time in Acts that the title "Savior" (Greek, _soter_ ) is used of Jesus. It is used only once more in Acts (13:23) and a few times in the Gospels. Although the title is common now, it is used less than 20 times in the rest of the New Testament. There is no question, however, that God's plan of salvation works through Jesus Christ as Savior (Philippians 3:20; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 4:14). As Peter stressed earlier, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). In these early sections Luke often reminds his readers that the promise of salvation was made to Israel (1:6; 2:36; 4:10, 27; 5:21). In keeping with God's promises, the offer of salvation went to the Jews first.

Peter made an important observation about salvation in his summary defense. Repentance and forgiveness of sins are _given_ by God (5:31). Human beings, on their own, cannot decide to repent and then present themselves as fulfilling the requirements for salvation. To repent involves having a "new mind" that connects with God's thoughts. This is something that must be given by God, and it is given through the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 8:10).

### Those who obey him (5:32)

Peter and the apostles say they are witnesses of these wonderful truths about salvation (5:32). Another witness is the Holy Spirit, "whom God has given to those who obey him" (5:32). When taken out of context, this verse might seem to teach that obedience must come first and is a requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit. However, the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit is a gift, not a payment for work.

True obedience to God, which comes from a relationship of trust, is internal and is made possible by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit must come _before_ faith and obedience can occur. We are saved through faith, not because of what we do (Romans 3:21-26; Ephesians 2:8). Faith goes hand in hand with an obedient, submissive spirit. But complete obedience — which would include sinlessness — is not the actual state of any human being, except Jesus.

Peter is not making a timeless or general statement about the cause-and-effect relationship of the Holy Spirit, faith and obedience. The context makes his point clear. The Sanhedrin is challenging the apostles' claim to be speaking for God. To the council, the apostles are rogues and revolutionaries, the leaders of a purely human movement who are trying to make the executed Jesus a martyr. The apostles counter the accusation by saying the Sanhedrin is the one resisting the purpose of God (5:30-31). The disciples insist that their witness to Christ is given under the direction of a divine witness (5:32). Apart from the Holy Spirit's presence in their preaching, the apostles' witness could fall only on deaf ears, as the attitude of the council itself revealed. Human testimony can have the desired effect on listeners only if the Holy Spirit is operating as a "witness" in the message and in the mind of the hearer.

Here, Peter is reaffirming that the Holy Spirit is revealing and guaranteeing the truth of the apostolic message. Peter points out that God's Spirit is "given to those who obey him" (5:32) – in other words, the Holy Spirit has already been given to the people who _are obeying_ him – that is, the apostles. Peter is asserting that the apostles truly have the Holy Spirit. This is not saying anything about _why_ or _when_ the Holy Spirit is given.

Peter says that he and the other apostles are obeying God rather than human beings (5:29). How are they doing so? By being witnesses to Jesus and preaching in his name! Peter is saying that this fact — that they are obeying God by preaching — is evidence of their having the Holy Spirit. Peter is emphasizing in verse 32 that he and the other apostles are obedient to the command of God to preach the gospel (1:8; 5:20). The specific obedience Peter refers to is that of being Jesus' witnesses, and he is declaring that their witness is corroborated by the Holy Spirit.

The fact that the apostles are witnessing to Christ is evidence that the Holy Spirit is with them — and not with the Sanhedrin, despite their claim to speak for God. In short, the Holy Spirit is given to those who, after being commanded to do so, obey God in faithfully preaching about Jesus Christ. The true representatives of God are the ones who are obeying him.

### Gamaliel the Pharisee (5:33-34)

The Jewish leaders are told that they were responsible for the death of Jesus, whom God had exalted. Peter insists that it is the apostles who are being led by God's Holy Spirit, and obedient to God. The implications are that the religious leaders are disobedient to God, have rejected his purpose for humanity, and have rejected their own Savior. Most of the Sanhedrin officials are angry after this accusation, and they are about to condemn the apostles to death. (Rome had not given the Sanhedrin the authority to inflict capital punishment, but the Sanhedrin could find a way around that, just as they had done with Jesus.)

But a man named Gamaliel stands up to speak, and what he says changes the council's mind and saves the apostles. This member of the Pharisee sect was an extremely respected teacher of the law. He was a grandson of Hillel, who founded one school of the Pharisees. Later, Luke notes that Gamaliel had been Paul's teacher (22:3). Gamaliel was so respected among pious Jews that he was given the title Rabban, which means "our teacher." This was a higher title than even Rab ("teacher") or Rabbi ("my teacher"). _The Mishnah,_ a book composed of materials attributed to Jewish teachers from 50 b.c. to A.D. 200, says of him: "When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Torah came to an end, and cleanness and separateness perished." [ _Sotah_ 9.15.]

Although the Sadducean leaders of the Sanhedrin want to sentence the apostles to death, they cannot take action without the support of so prominent a religious leader as Gamaliel. Though the Pharisees are in the minority in the Sanhedrin, they command much more public support than the Sadducees. For this reason, the Sanhedrin cannot disregard the opinion of a Pharisee, especially one of Gamaliel's stature.

### Counsel of moderation (5:35-39)

Gamaliel tells the council to reconsider its desire to have the apostles executed (5:35) and to let them go (5:38). If their movement is of purely human origin, it will fail, said Gamaliel. But if it came from a divine source, he said, "You will only find yourselves fighting against God" (5:39).

Gamaliel refers to two Jewish revolutionaries — Theudas and Judas — who were killed by the Romans, and their followers scattered (5:36-37). His implication is that if the Christian movement is another attempted revolution, the Roman military will kill its leaders and crush the movement. The Jewish leaders don't need to get involved in something that might backfire on them.

At first glance, it seems strange that a member of the Pharisee sect would counsel leniency for Jesus' disciples. After all, the Pharisees were frequent debate opponents of Jesus, as Luke noted in his Gospel. [Luke 5:21, 30; 7:30; 11:37-12:1; 15:2; 16:14-15; 18:9-14.] Jesus often criticized them for their hypocritical behavior. Also, Gamaliel must have been on the council when it condemned Jesus and handed him over to the Roman authority for crucifixion (Luke 22:66-23:25; Matthew 27:62). There is no indication that Gamaliel defended Jesus. Why come to the defense of his followers now?

Some commentators point out that Jesus was not necessarily hated by all the Pharisees. He was often invited to their homes for a meal (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1). Jesus appeared to have some support among this sect, as the case of Nicodemus indicates (John 3:1; 7:50; 19:39). Later, many of the Pharisees became Christians (Acts 15:5; 23:6). While Pharisees would have been on the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, the Gospels do not name Gamaliel specifically, so we do not know how Gamaliel felt about Jesus and what the Sanhedrin did with Jesus. Thus, many commentators are led to a favorable view of Gamaliel's counsel to free the apostles. William Neil says:

#### Apart from his liberal leanings, which would encourage his tolerance of the Nazarenes [i.e., Christians] as law-abiding and faithful Jews, Gamaliel would be naturally more sympathetic than were the Sadducees to preachers of the Resurrection. [Neil, 99.]

Others take a more critical view of Gamaliel's speech. They point out that Gamaliel was one of the synagogues' leaders and would have been party to the condemnation of Jesus. Gamaliel had already rejected the apostles' claim that the power of God was at work — that Jesus had been resurrected and glorified (5:31). He was also part of a council that had earlier rejected the proof that God had healed the beggar at the temple gate. Later, with Judaism's institutions — the temple, law and land — under frontal assault by Stephen, Gamaliel probably joined in the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem.

The leader of the Christians — Jesus — had already been executed, just like the leaders of the two movements to which Gamaliel referred, Theudas and Judas. Gamaliel's inference was that the Christians are already a doomed movement because their leader, Jesus, is dead. The apostles will soon follow. Why get involved in a religious argument that could have bad political consequences for Jews?

### Apostles rejoice (5:40-41)

Whatever point of view Gamaliel may have held toward the apostles, his intervention results in their freedom. But first they are flogged and again ordered not to speak in Jesus' name (5:40). The apostles probably receive a severe beating of 39 lashes. The Mishnah describes this punishment, based on Deuteronomy 25:2-3. [ _Makkot_ 3:10-15a.] The whipping could be administered by the Sanhedrin or the officials of a local synagogue if it was determined that Jewish law had been violated. Paul would later feel the sting of such a flogging on five occasions (2 Corinthians 11:24).

The apostles rejoice in their punishment, for they think of themselves as being "counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name" (5:41). Jesus counseled his disciples to rejoice when persecuted for his name (Matthew 5:11). The apostles Peter and Paul, having suffered much persecution themselves, could from personal experience tell Christians to rejoice even though they are persecuted (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Peter 1:6; 4:13). Such situations as this one described by Luke provide Christians with examples of the spiritual rejoicing they can have even under persecution.

Finally, Luke reports that the apostles are obedient to the angelic message to preach the gospel. They disregard the warning of the Sanhedrin not to teach and "they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah" (5:42).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Acts Chapter 6: Persecution Strikes the Church, continued

### Hebraic and Grecian Jews (6:1)

Luke turns away from the conflict between the Sanhedrin and the church leaders to introduce two groups within the Jerusalem church. They were the "Grecian" Jews (Greek, _Hellenistai,_ or "Hellenists") and "Hebraic" Jews. We may be surprised that subgroups exist within the first church. But these groups are crucial to the story of Acts. It's important we identify these Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews, for it will help us understand the situation of the Jerusalem church, and how the gospel message is being preached.

Most commentators divide the Grecian and Hebraic Jews along linguistic and geographic lines. The Hellenistic Jews are those who speak mainly Greek, and formerly lived outside of Judea and Galilee. But they had settled in Jerusalem — retired, as it were, to the homeland. Nevertheless, they still have affinities with lands of the Jewish dispersion from which they came. The Hebraic Jews are those who speak mainly Aramaic, and were born in Jerusalem or Judea. A parallel in modern Jerusalem would be the distinction between Jews who were born in the land of Israel ( _sabras_ ) and those who migrated to Israel from other nations. The Hellenistic Jews in the church probably attended Greek-speaking synagogues before they became Christians. The Hebraic Christians attended synagogues in which Aramaic was used.

Defining these two groups solely by their language and place of birth lacks some precision. Paul called himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philippians 3:5) and classed himself among the _Hebraioi_ (2 Corinthians 11:22). But he was fluent in Greek and came from Tarsus in Asia Minor, not Jerusalem. In that sense, Paul was a Hellenist who spoke Aramaic like a native. While Paul had been born a Diaspora Jew, it's probable that he lived since his youth in Jerusalem, where he was immersed in Judaism.

Clearly, we must go further when trying to understand the difference between Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews. Some commentators feel that the Hellenistic Jews are more devoted to the ancestral religion and culture than the Aramaic-speaking Jews. Why would they have returned to Judea, whose culture and economy were less attractive than those of other regions of the Roman Empire?

Further, we can probably assume that Diaspora Jews who settled in Jerusalem may have been looked upon with dislike and suspicion by the natives. The immigrants would have had different languages (Greek and native tongues), values and culture. We can see this suspicion and resentment in many nations today by native-born people against immigrants.

#### According to the Talmud, Pharisaism made little secret of its contempt for Hellenists and, unlike those from Syria or Babylonia (regions that are often considered extensions of the Holy Land in Talmudic discussions), they were frequently categorized by the native-born ... populace of Jerusalem as second-class Israelites. [Longenecker, 329.]

As the church in Jerusalem grew larger, more and more Hebraic and Grecian Jews came into the church, and some of the prejudices between the two groups carried over into the church. As the case of Ananias and Sapphira showed, all was not well with everyone in the church. One of the difficulties is that the Greek-speaking Jews feel that they are being discriminated against in the Jerusalem church. Perhaps the slight is not intentional, but it is nonetheless felt. Luke implies that the Hellenists are a somewhat neglected minority, and for a time, not well served.

### Widows neglected (6:1)

The problem is that the Hellenistic widows of the Jerusalem church are "being overlooked in the daily distribution of food" (6:1). That is, the church apparently has an organized charity, such as a daily "soup kitchen" for the needy, including widows. But the immigrant widows are not getting an equal share. This is a blight on the church. Both the Torah and the example of Jesus mandate that the community pay special attention to helping widows. [Deuteronomy 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12-13.] The law even specifies a curse for those who neglect the poor (Deuteronomy 27:19).

The prophets stress the responsibility of "doing justice" for widows. [Malachi 3:5; Isaiah 1:17, 23; 10:2; Jeremiah 5:28; 7:6; 23:3; Ezekiel 22:7; Psalm 93:6.] In the New Testament, the epistle of James reflects the importance of such justice, insisting that true religion includes looking after orphans and widows in their distress (1:27). Mechanisms for aiding widows had long been promoted in Judaism. Jews had developed a system of aid to the poor and those in need. Religious communities such as the Essenes had a kind of social security system that provided for members' needs. But here Christians are neglecting their own.

As in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, this neglect of church widows is no incidental problem. Although Luke presents the situation without condemnation, the affront threatens the spiritual integrity of the Christian community. It's possible that the inequity in the distribution of food was merely the surface issue. This may be part of a larger conflict between two groups who had different cultural backgrounds. (We will eventually see doctrinal differences become more evident between the two groups.)

Earlier, we saw the Christian community taking care of the needy. Believers were freely sharing their possessions with the less fortunate among them (2:44-45; 5:32, 34-35). But as the church grows, so does the number of widows who need help. To make matters worse, widows from the Diaspora would probably be especially in need. They would be less likely to have relatives nearby to help them. And if they do not speak the local language very well, they may be missing out on some of the information.

They are the ones with the most need, but the church is neglecting them. Almost certainly, discrimination is involved in the inequity, but Luke tends to downplay controversies in favor of showing how problems were resolved. The distribution of food is probably in the hands of the Hebrews, and they unthinkingly take care of their own, and the Greek-speaking widows cannot communicate their needs to the people doing the distribution.

Ultimately, the apostles are responsible, because they administer the common fund (4:34-35), but they have more work than they can handle. Since they are Hebrews, it is easy for them to be unaware that the Greek-speaking widows are being neglected. As soon as they learn that the immigrant widows are being neglected, they immediately take steps to correct the problem.

### "Choose seven men" (6:2-6)

When the neglect comes to light, the Twelve gather the church together and tell the members that the apostles can no longer manage the food distribution program. They simply lack the time to do it right. The apostles are too occupied with evangelism to "wait on tables" (6:2). They ask the group to chose seven men to handle the daily distribution. The apostles will turn the responsibility of the "soup kitchen" over to them (verse 3).

The apostles do not ignore the problem, nor chastise the widows for complaining. Nor do they try to hold on to this important responsibility, because they can do it only if they neglect their duty to preach. Members of the Jerusalem congregation are therefore asked to choose seven people who can take over the social-service work of the church.

The Twelve obviously have great stature and power in the church community and could have chosen the leaders on their own. But on this critical decision they are willing to give up their authority and ask the community to decide. The apostles turn the authority for working out the solution of the problem to those who feel it most acutely, for they are probably the best ones to solve it.

The apostles give requirements: The men are to have both _wisdom_ and the _Spirit,_ or we might say, a wisdom inspired by the Holy Spirit (6:3). Clearly, the apostles are no longer jockeying for power, as when they were unconverted (Luke 22:24; Matthew 20:20-28). The seven men chosen are Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas, a Gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch (6:5). The men have Greek names, and it is likely that they all come from the Hellenistic wing of the Jerusalem church (though many Judean Jews also have Greek names).

### Stephen and Philip (6:5)

Stephen, introduced here almost as an aside, will become an important figure in Luke's story. (Luke often casually introduces important characters a short time _before_ they become important.) His activities in the next chapter link the Jerusalem church to the Christian movement beyond Judea. He is a pivotal character whose death ends Luke's story of the Jerusalem church. Luke mentions Stephen later in Acts, and his book shows how Stephen provides a turning point for the spread of the gospel (11:19; 22:20). In particular, Stephen's speech is the catalyst that sparks a great persecution. This causes Christians to flee to other areas, bringing the gospel with them (8:2). What looked like bad news at first, turned out to be good in the long run.

Of the other six individuals Luke mentions, only Philip plays a further role in Luke's account. It is an important one. Philip became a prophet-evangelist. Luke shows him doing signs and miracles (8:6, 13) and being empowered by the Spirit to preach the gospel (8:29, 39). His seven daughters prophesy (21:9). Philip carries the gospel to Samaria (8:5); proclaims salvation to the Ethiopian (8:29); and takes the message along the Judean coast from Azotus to Caesarea (8:40). Some years later on his final trip to Jerusalem, Paul visits Philip in Caesarea (21:8). It's possible that Philip was one of Luke's sources for the story of Acts, especially for the events narrated in chapters 6-8.

The interesting thing about Nicolaus, the last-mentioned of the seven, is that he is a convert (proselyte) to Judaism from paganism. Only full converts are called proselytes. They are instructed in Judaism, baptized and circumcised. The God-fearers only worship and study in the synagogues; they are not circumcised. Luke notes that Nicolas comes from Antioch in Syria. This is the first reference to the city that will soon become the launching-point for the Gentile mission. And the church already has a leader who is Gentile by blood.

### Laying on of hands (6:6)

The church community as a whole, or perhaps the Hellenistic part, selects the men it wants to handle the daily distribution. They are taken to the apostles, who officially place them in office. The apostles give a community prayer and "laid their hands on them" (6:6). This is the first mention of this practice in Acts. In Acts it accompanies several events — baptism (8:17, 19; 19:6); healings (9:12, 17; 28:8) and a commission to ministry (13:3). The practice has ties with the Old Testament, where the laying on of hands is mentioned in a variety of contexts. [Genesis 48:13-20; Exodus 29:10; Leviticus 1:4, 3:2; 4:4; 16:21; Numbers 27:23.] In general, it symbolizes a conferring of office and responsibility (Numbers 8:10). In the Old Testament, it was the community of Israel that placed hands on the individual, though it would have been physically impossible for the entire community to do it. People _representing_ the community laid on their hands. The same thing is true in Acts as the apostles lay hands on the seven men on behalf of the whole community. This ritual signals that the church as a whole approves the men to supervise the daily distribution.

#### It is not quite as clear as NIV makes out who prayed and laid their hands on them. If the grammatical agreements of the Greek are any guide, then it was done by the whole church acting "in the presence of the apostles".... By this act the people made them their representatives, as the Israelites had once made Levites their representatives by laying hands on them (Numbers 27:18; Deuteronomy 34:9). [David J. Williams, _Acts_. New International Bible Commentary. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990), page 123.]

It is often assumed that the Seven are appointed to the office of deacon. However, Luke does not refer to them by this term. He uses the ordinary verb for service, _diakoneo,_ but not the noun _diakonos._ When Philip is described by a title, he is called "Philip the evangelist" (21:8), not "Philip the deacon." (The first New Testament mention of _deacons_ is in Romans 16:1 and Philippians 1:1.)

Actually, the Seven are not given a title — they are in a service role. Their responsibility is similar to what deacons later did (1 Timothy 3:8-13), but over time, it becomes apparent that these men are appointed by God to serve in a special ministry. Stephen and Philip, the two of the Seven about which we know something, seem to have no further connection to the daily distribution or "waiting on tables." They are prophets who preach the word, do signs and wonders, and extend the work of the apostles.

They are formally named as the Seven (Acts 21:8), even as the original apostles are called the Twelve. In effect, the office of the Seven is as unique as that of the original apostles.

#### While not minimizing the importance of the apostles to the whole church, we may say, that in some way Stephen, Philip, and perhaps others of the appointed seven may well have been to the Hellenistic believers what the apostles were to the native-born Christians. [Longenecker, 335.]

### Jerusalem church grows (6:7)

Luke ends the account of the Seven with a summary statement of the progress of the gospel and church: "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith" (6:7). This is one of Luke's regular pauses to summarize the state of the church's growth in Jerusalem (2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14). Six of these general reports have been noted in Acts, each one showing a further outreach of the gospel from Jerusalem. [Acts 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31.]

The events of the first panel probably take place in the first year or so after Jesus' resurrection. The second panel occurs in the mid-thirties A.D. The second panel (6:8-9:30) focuses on the work of three Hellenists whose ministries were essential for spreading the gospel beyond Jerusalem — Stephen, Philip, and Saul (Paul). Stephen had a brief career. He was martyred after giving a scathing speech to Jews who were members of one or more Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem.

Luke records only a brief ministry for Philip in Samaria and the coastal area of Judea. However, he probably continued to preach, and is still part of the community about 20 years later (21:8-9). Also in the second panel, Luke records Saul's conversion and early ministry. He is, in a sense, the third "Hellenist." (Though Saul is a Hebraic Jew in some respects, he is also a man of the Diaspora and the Greek world.)

In the second panel, Luke's interest moves from Peter and the Twelve to focus more on the Hellenistic Seven and Paul. The church in Jerusalem has expanded among Jews who are connected with the world at large — the Hellenists. They may be "Hellenists" because of one or more characteristics — language, place of birth, custom or psychological orientation. This means that the preaching of the gospel has begun to go beyond the traditional preoccupations of Jewish culture — its land (especially Jerusalem), the temple and the Law.

The church has resolved some of its major potential problems — especially injustice and disunity. Now, in a spirit of prayer and with the power of the Holy Spirit, it is ready to move on — "So the word of God spread" (6:7).

Luke informs his readers that a large number of priests are converted and become part of the church (6:7). One commentator estimates that as many as 8,000 priests and 10,000 Levites serve at the temple. We should distinguish these ordinary priests from the high priestly families. The working priests are a marginalized group — far removed from the world of the enormously wealthy high priestly families — and perhaps even disaffected from them. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:181; _Wars_ 2:409-410.] It is from the ranks of the common priests that many were converted to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

### The preaching of Stephen (6:8-10)

Luke next turns to give an account of Stephen's ministry. The apostles are teaching mainly at the temple, and in front of the Sanhedrin. Now we see a subtle shift in audience, as a leader of the Hellenistic Christian community brings the gospel to the Greek-speaking _synagogues_ in Jerusalem. In particular, he evangelizes among members of the "Synagogue of the Freedmen," composed of Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria in North Africa and from provinces in Asia Minor — Cilicia and Asia (6:9).

"Freedmen" were former slaves (or their children) who had been emancipated by their owners. During Pompey's conquest of Judea in 63 b.c., for example, many Jews were taken captive to Rome, and many others probably ended up being sent to various parts of the Empire. Many of these slaves were later freed. The descendants of such slaves, the Jewish freedmen, begin to argue with Stephen. But they cannot "stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke" (6:10). Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would teach them what to say when they came to trial (Luke 12:12). They will be given "words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict" (Luke 21:15). Luke shows that another prophecy had come to pass.

In essence, Stephen speaks as a prophet, as one of the witnesses predicted by Jesus. He is filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom (6:5, 10; 7:55) and he does "great wonders and signs." For Luke these are the marks of a prophet. [Acts 2:19, 22, 43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12.] Stephen is "full of God's grace and power" (6:8). The comparison with the apostles, who also spoke "with great power," is clear (4:33). Stephen speaks with the same spiritual might as the apostles, and should be recognized as one who brings a true gospel message.

### False accusations (6:11-14)

After hearing Stephen speak, Jews from the Synagogue of Freedmen organize a smear campaign. They persuade some people to say, "We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God" (6:11). To blaspheme or slander Moses is to say something thought to be disrespectful about the Torah, "the law of Moses." What Stephen is probably doing is challenging the centrality of the law in God's plan of salvation — he is saying that Jesus, not the law, is the center of God's plan.

To "speak blasphemous words against Moses" refers to contempt for the temple and its rituals. By saying that salvation comes through Christ, Stephen seems to say that the system of worship centered on the Jerusalem temple is not needed. But the temple is the foundation and focus of Jewish national life, worship and salvation. This does not set well with a pious Jewish group that centers its religious life around its institutions. The temple is the very reason these people had moved to Jerusalem.

The Synagogue of Freedman take their campaign of slander to the streets, to the city fathers and religious leaders. With mounting support in their favor, the Freedmen are emboldened to grab Stephen and drag him before the Sanhedrin. They bring false witnesses who lay an ominous charge against Stephen: "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law" (6:13). Similar charges are later leveled against Paul (21:20-21, 28; 24:7; 25:8).

Stephen is charged with religious innovation. The witnesses claim: "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us" (6:14). Although Luke says this accusation comes from false witnesses, there is truth in what they are saying. Even if Stephen was not preaching it, they were able to see that if what Stephen is preaching is true, then it does render the temple and the ancestral customs obsolete.

### Temple obsolete (6:11-14)

Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple (Luke 21:5), and that people did not need to worship there (John 4:21). Jesus is God's replacement for the temple – a hard saying for unconverted Jews (Mark 14:58; 15:19; John 2:19). God is not to be found in a place, or a system of worship, or a time. Rather, he lives within all believers, wherever they were, through the Spirit.

Jesus declared the temple to be obsolete as a place where one must go to worship and have sin atoned. True spiritual cleansing comes through Jesus' death and resurrection. [Mark 15:38; John 4:21; Ephesians 2:20; Hebrews 10:20; 1 Peter 2:5.] Stephen is probably echoing these thoughts, insisting that with the coming of Christ the temple order is finished. The book of Hebrews explains this, and discusses the same general points Stephen probably makes. As F.F. Bruce points out, "In a number of respects Stephen blazes a trail later followed by the writer to the Hebrews." [Bruce, 132.]

If the book of Hebrews contains the kinds of spiritual realities Stephen is speaking about, it's not surprising that the Jews are angry at him. In their view, these ideas support the notion that he is speaking against Moses and God.

#### Stephen had a vision of a world for Christ. To the Jews two things were specially precious — the Temple, where alone sacrifice would be offered and God could be truly worshipped, and the Law which could never be changed. Stephen, however, said that the Temple must pass away, that the Law was but a stage toward the gospel and that Christianity must go out to the whole wide world. [William Barclay, _The Acts of the Apostles,_ revised edition, The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), page 53.]

We have no account of Stephen's preaching to the Greek-speaking Jews, so we don't know exactly what he told them. But we can infer the drift of his teaching from the criticisms leveled against him, and from his later speech before the Aramaic-speaking Sanhedrin. With such volatile issues at stake, the antagonistic Freedmen merely needed to put a subtle but deadly twist on what Stephen is saying. There is no need for wholesale fabrication.

Stephen's speech is unusual in that it attacks the very basis of Jewish life, something that the Twelve, so far as we can tell from Acts, don't do. They don't minimize the temple — they worship there, as does most of the church (2:46; 3:1; 5:13). But Stephen is doing more than insisting that Jews must accept Jesus as Messiah. He is telling them that their faith in the law and temple is misplaced and of no particular value.

#### From the accusations and from his defense, it is clear that Stephen had begun to apply his Christian convictions regarding the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth in God's redemptive program to such issues as the significance of the land, the law, and the temple for Jewish Christians in view of the advent of the Messiah. This, however, was a dangerous path to tread, particularly for Hellenistic Jewish Christians! It was one that the apostles themselves seem to have been unwilling to explore. [Longenecker, 336.]

Stephen's frontal attack on Jewish institutions has far-reaching repercussions for the church in Jerusalem. His speech alienates the Jewish community from the church, and unites its disparate parties against the believers. The entire city of Jerusalem is infuriated (6:12).

#### The chief-priestly party knew that they need have no fear of popular disapproval this time in prosecuting a leading member of the Nazarene community; on the contrary, the people would support and indeed demand the severest sanctions of the law against the man. [Bruce, 126.]

#### From the Sanhedrin to "the man on the street," it turned into enemies those who had until now at least tolerated the believers. This in turn removed the one thing that had restrained the Sanhedrin from a thoroughgoing persecution of the believers, namely, their popularity (cf. 2:47; 5:13, 26). [Williams, 125.]

### Facing the Sanhedrin (6:15)

Chapter 6 describes the background of Stephen's missionary work, which leads to his arrest. The next chapter, the longest in Acts, is devoted to Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin. Taken together, the two chapters complete Luke's discussion of the preaching of the gospel in Jerusalem and his description of the church in the city. After this, Luke begins reporting on the church's expansion beyond Jerusalem.

The last verse of chapter 6 sets the stage for Stephen's long speech before the Sanhedrin. Luke says that to the Sanhedrin members Stephen appeared to have "the face of an angel" (6:15). Luke probably means to tell us that Stephen is being led by the Holy Spirit (6:3, 5), and that the speech we will read is inspired by God. The high priest asks Stephen if the charges brought against him are true (7:1). This high priest was probably Caiaphas, who held office until A.D. 36. As president of the Sanhedrin, he was the chief judge in Jewish trials.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Acts Chapter 7: Persecution Strikes the Church, part 3

### Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin (7:2-53)

Stephen's response is the longest speech in Acts. His speech can be divided into segments that cover different aspects of Israel's history:

\- Abraham's calling (7:2-8);

\- the Patriarchs in Egypt (7:9-16);

\- life of Moses (7:17-36);

\- Moses and Israel in the wilderness (7:37-43);

\- and the Tabernacle of Testimony (7:44-50).

Stephen concludes with a stinging rebuke of the Sanhedrin (7:51-53). As good debaters often do, Stephen avoids answering the high priest's question. He does not even directly address the accusation that he had slandered Moses and God.

#### The defense of Stephen before the Sanhedrin is hardly a defense in the sense of an explanation or apology calculated to win an acquittal. Rather, it is a proclamation of the Christian message in terms of the popular Judaism of the day and an indictment of the Jewish leaders for their failure to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah or to appreciate the salvation provided in him. [Longenecker, 337.]

Stephen does respond to the underlying charge that he is a renegade Jew, and by extension, that the Messianic church is composed of apostate Jews. He does this by asserting that Israelite history (from the call of Abraham to the building of Solomon's temple) proves that his listeners are the real defectors from God. Stephen is on the offense, not trying to win any favors!

Stephen points out that throughout Jewish history, God raised up leaders to deliver the people, but the Israelites rejected those leaders, including Moses (7:35). They erroneously believed that they were in God's presence as long as they worshiped in the temple. But God's presence in the original moveable sanctuary, the tabernacle, did not keep the Israelites from idolatry (7:39-42). The Jews are mistaken if they think that God dwells in the nation simply because the temple is in Jerusalem (7:44-50).

Stephen turns the accusation on its head. It is not he, but the Jewish leaders, who are violating Moses and his law. Stephen makes his point by mentioning Abraham as the progenitor of God's nation. He is asking: Who really represents Abraham's people? Certainly it is not his listeners, the descendants of Israel, a nation that continually rejects Moses and God. Rather, God's (Abraham's) people are those who accept "the Righteous One" and follow the Holy Spirit (7:51-52).

The facts of Israel's history that Stephen recites were familiar to his listeners. Jewish rabbis, pundits and teachers often recite elements of the story of Israel to support some particular understanding of it. Thus, Stephen's listeners are quite aware of his point in retelling the biblical story. What is radically different about the content of Stephen's speech is its insistence that the Jews are _not_ truly obedient to God! He is swimming in dangerous waters, for this accusation goes against the popular Jewish understanding of themselves as God's people. Stephen speech drills home one main point: those who claim to be the people of God have never obeyed in faith. His listeners always reject the saving message of God.

Stephen's speech differs sharply from previous speeches in Acts. He is the first Christian speaker to challenge Jewish institutions, the law and the temple. In this speech he also challenges the Jews, not only as those who rejected their Messiah, but as a people who have failed to respond to God throughout their history. In short, those who think they are a people of God, are not his people.

Commentators also see Stephen as "the first to challenge Christianity's dependence on Jewish institutions." [Neil, 116.] Before Stephen, the church assumed itself to be merely an extension of the Jewish nation, a kind of righteous remnant within it, to bring Israel _back_ to a worship of God. Stephen shocks his listeners by saying Israel, as a whole, had never truly worshiped God to begin with.

### Staggering implications (7:7)

Before Stephen, the church thought of Jesus simply as the Jewish Messiah. After Stephen, it became clearer that he is the Savior of all peoples, not just of the Jews. The implications are staggering. Stephen's speech suggests a world mission not just to scattered Jews, but to all ethnic groups. In the words of David J. Williams, Stephen was

#### a pioneer and in some ways an exemplar of the new direction that the church was to take. He was, so to speak, the connecting link between Peter and Paul — a link indispensable to the chain of salvation history that God was forging. [Williams, 130-131.]

Stephen's speech indicates that the church should think about turning away from Jerusalem and the temple. It is time to evangelize other places besides Jerusalem — and this is exactly what will soon be done (8:1). Stephen's speech implies that Jewish institutions are of no value in themselves. They need to be left behind or seen in a new spiritual light. Most of all, the church is not just an extension of a righteous remnant _within_ Judaism. It actually forms a new people of the Spirit.

There is an interesting aspect to Stephen's speech that implies that evangelization and theology must move beyond Jerusalem. He shows that God's activity in saving Israel occurred _outside_ of Jerusalem and Judea. God appeared to Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia and Haran (7:2, 4). God rescued Joseph while he was in Egypt (7:10). Moses was called in Midian, near Mount Sinai (7:30). Israel was saved while in Egypt and protected in the wilderness (7:36). In Stephen's examples, God's work and calling took place outside of the promised land. He met his people, not just in a temple in Jerusalem, but anywhere he pleased. From this it can be surmised that God is an international God interested in all people. The point is that God's presence and calling are not restricted to the land of Israel, or to one ethnic group, or a temple.

Stephen is arguing against a superstitious veneration of the temple and of Jerusalem. God's saving activity can take place anywhere. Thus, the church should be looking for a people (wherever they may be) who are willing to be submissive to the lead of the Holy Spirit.

Stephen's speech must be seen against the backdrop of then currently esteemed institutions in Judaism. Richard Longenecker points out that "before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the three great pillars of popular Jewish piety were (1) the land, (2) the law, and (3) the temple." [Longenecker, 337.] Stephen's speech alerts his hearers to a deception about these venerated institutions. The Jews believe that God is present with them — with their group — because he is present in their land, their law and their temple. Yet, they were neglecting to look at themselves — that God needs to be present in their thoughts and actions, wherever they are.

Stephen is not denouncing the law or the land, not even the temple. (He argues that the ancient Israelites were wrong to reject Moses.) Rather, Stephen is chastising his hearers for missing the obvious: they are sinners (as their fathers were) and need a Savior. By discussing Israel's sinful history, Stephen demonstrates that the Jews need a Savior. There's a great message in Stephen's sermon for all generations. As Christians we must not put faith in our group, our beliefs or institutions. Otherwise, we may forget that, as sinners, we also need a living Savior. Nor should we assume that God is only with us, and is not working anywhere else. Stephen is pointing out that we all need to put our faith in the Righteous One.

However, it is curious that Stephen does not mention the name of Christ in his speech, nor his resurrection (but we should also note that Stephen did not get a chance to finish his speech). This is in contrast to previous speeches in Acts, which focus on a glorified Jesus. Just before his speech was cut short by the angry mob, he condemned his listeners for betraying and murdering "the Righteous One," foretold in their own Scriptures (7:52) — a clear reference to the death of the Messiah.

Perhaps if Stephen could continue talking, he would focus on the resurrected and ascended Christ. But even without this emphasis, it is still clear where Stephen is going. Jewish faith in itself — and its institutions — as defining the people of God needs to be radically altered to make Jesus the center of worship.

### Abraham (7:2-8)

Stephen begins his history of Israel at its most fundamental place, with God's call of Abraham. One of Stephen's objectives is to show that God does not live in the Jerusalem temple (7:48). So here he says that the "God of glory" appeared to Abraham — not in Jerusalem, but in pagan Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and northeastern Syria).

The Jews associate the glory of God — the Shekinah — with the moveable tabernacle in the wilderness (Exodus 25:8; 40:34-38), and later the temple (Ezekiel 43:2, 4). So right at the beginning of his speech Stephen establishes that God needs neither tent nor temple to work with human beings. God's self-revelation is not limited to the land of the Jews, certainly not to Jerusalem and the temple. Stephen draws his listeners to the important actor in the story — God.

Stephen respectfully calls the Sanhedrin members "brothers and fathers" (7:2). He also refers to Abraham as "our father." For the moment, Stephen is framing the debate in the context of a family quarrel. Stephen places himself at one with the Sanhedrin throughout the speech by using this terminology (7:11, 12, 19, 38, 44, 45). Not until the end of his speech, when he delivers a final stinging rebuke, does he say " _your_ fathers," this time referring to Israelites throughout the ages, not the patriarchs.

### Some questions (7:2-8)

Commentators pose some questions about the biblical quotations, numbers and chronology in Stephen's speech. The difficulties are technical and do not affect the main thrust of the speech, or its important points. We will consider briefly some of the questions. These can point to a possible solution of the others.

One of these questions concerns the place of Abraham's calling. Stephen states that God's glory appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran (7:2). (Abraham's family originally came from the Mesopotamian city of Ur.) The story of Abraham's call in Genesis 11:27-5 seems to contradict Acts and implies that God's call was given in Haran, not in Mesopotamia. However, Abraham's call occurred in Ur as much as it did in Haran, and other Old Testament passages verify this. [Genesis 15:7; Joshua 24:3; Nehemiah 9:7.] Jewish tradition also agreed on this. [Philo, _On Abraham_ 70-72; Josephus, _Antiquities_ 1:154-157.] Abraham's original call came in the city of Ur. After he moved to Haran, Abraham received a similar divine message.

Another difficulty in Stephen's speech concerns numbers. He says that the Israelites were mistreated and enslaved in Egypt for 400 years (7:6). His phraseology seems to be taken from Genesis 15:14, which concurs on the number as being 400 years. However, according to Exodus 12:40, Israel's sojourning in Egypt lasted 430 years. Both Genesis and Stephen are using 400 as a round number, not a precise span. For the purpose of Stephen's speech, a round number is all that is needed. The period Israel spent in Egypt was actually shorter. Galatians 3:16-17 says that 430 years ran from the original covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 7; 13:15) to the giving of the law after the Exodus. Abraham and his descendants were strangers in the land for 430 years, and most of that time period was characterized by mistreatment.

### Joseph (7:9-16)

Though the patriarchs — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons — are all mentioned by Stephen, Joseph is the real focus of the story. Joseph's ten older brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt. But later Joseph became the prime minister of the nation. Meanwhile, a famine occurred in Egypt and Canaan. Joseph had stored enough food during the seven years of bounteous crops to see Egypt through the famine. Canaan was not so fortunate. Jacob and his brothers went to Egypt to buy food.

Joseph is the key to this part of Stephen's story. Earlier, Stephen painted Abraham as a man willing to answer the call of God and go where he was instructed. In the same way, Stephen shows Joseph to be a man of faith. And it is through faith that "God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles" (7:9-10). In the account of Abraham, Stephen shows God acting outside of the Holy Land, in Haran. Now he makes the point that God was with Joseph and his brothers in Egypt, again outside the Promised Land. Indeed, the name "Egypt" is repeated six times for emphasis in verses 9-16. Stephen is trying to make a point.

God did not save Jacob and his sons from famine in their new homeland. Rather, they had go to Egypt — where Joseph was rescued by God — in order to get food. Then, the entire family settled _outside of_ Canaan, in a particularly fruitful part of Egypt. There they all died. Stephen is continuing to exploit the account of Israel's history to show that God saves people outside of Judea and Jerusalem. The point is that God can work with individuals anywhere he chooses, and in whatever way he chooses.

Commentators also see parallels in the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus. Joseph is rejected by his brothers, just as Jesus is rejected by his own people (John 1:11). Joseph is thrown into a pit (the grave?) but God rescues him out of it. Though he is rejected by his own, strangers receive him (the Gentiles). Finally, Joseph is raised up to be the ruler, even as Christ has been glorified by God with all power over the nations.

### The two visits (7:11-13)

Stephen even exploits the double visit of Jacob and his sons to Egypt to buy food. The brothers did not recognize Joseph on the first visit, an aspect of the story Stephen's listeners would be aware of. "Although Joseph recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him" (Genesis 42:8). However, "On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was" (7:13). It is only because Joseph made himself known to them — and which made it possible for them to recognize him — could they be saved. Likewise, Jesus was rejected on his "first visit" in the incarnation. But there is an opportunity to recognize and accept him now on his "second visit" through the preaching of the church.

In Stephen's story the inability of Israel to recognize God's servant on the first visit was true for Joseph, Moses and the Righteous One (Jesus). This drives home the point that the Jews did not recognize their saviors.

### Some questions (7:14-15)

As in the Abraham panel, there are some technical difficulties in the Joseph story as well. For one, Stephen says that the number of people who went to Egypt was 75 (7:14). However, the figure in Genesis 46:27 is given as 70 — 66 individuals plus Jacob, Joseph and Joseph's two sons born in Egypt. Of course, when we say Genesis 46:27 gives the number as 70 (see also Exodus 1:5), we are referring to English translations, which are based on the Hebrew Masoretic [The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the Middle Ages.] textual tradition.

However, the Septuagint _Greek_ version of Genesis 46:27 (sometimes called "the Bible of the early Christian church") gives the number of people going down to Egypt as 75. It arrives at this figure by omitting Jacob and Joseph but including _nine_ sons of Joseph in the total. Exodus 2:1 in this version also has the number 75. Stephen, a Greek-speaking Hellenist, was almost certainly following the text of the Septuagint version.

### Buried in Abraham's tomb (7:16)

A second problem in this section concerns the place of burial of Abraham and his descendants. Stephen says that Jacob "and our fathers" are buried in a tomb in Shechem, which Abraham purchased from the sons of Hamor (7:16). However, the story is more complicated in the Old Testament. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron, a plot Abraham had purchased from Ephron the Hittite (Genesis 23:1-20; 49:29-32; 50:13), and which is in Judea. Joseph, on the other hand, was buried at Shechem (Joshua 24:32) in a plot Jacob had purchased from the sons of Hamor (Genesis 33:18-20 with Joshua 24:32).

It has been suggested that Stephen is simply condensing the two accounts of burial property purchases, one near Hebron and the other in Shechem. He did a similar thing in describing the two calls of Abraham at Ur and Haran as one. A variant explanation is that Stephen may be following a tradition that makes Shechem the burial place for the entire family.

However, Stephen may have an important purpose in singling out Shechem as the burial place. He is giving a speech to the leading Jews of Jerusalem, who hold their land in great esteem. But Stephen points out that the patriarchs are buried in Shechem, in the territory of the Samaritans. If the patriarchs allowed themselves to be buried in Shechem — and proper burial was important to Jews — it implies again that God can work anywhere. The point is, one need not be buried on "holy ground" to be resurrected to life. Perhaps we can also see in the mention of Samaritan territory a clue to the coming evangelization of Samaria (8:5-25).

### Moses (7:20-43)

Stephen now turns to the story of Moses. This is the longest and most complex of the sections on Israel's history. Moses' life is discussed in three parts, each totaling 40 years (7:20-29; 30-35; 36-43). What is striking is the disproportionate emphasis on Moses. By comparison there are only two references to the Messiah, and those only in an indirect way. The Messiah is called the Prophet-like-Moses (from Deuteronomy 18:15) and the Righteous One, but not directly as either Christ or Jesus (7:37; 52).

There is a good reason for Stephen's emphasis on Moses. He was accused of blasphemy against Moses" and saying that Jesus would "change the customs Moses handed down to us" (6:11, 14). In the speech, Stephen turns the accusation against those who had accused him. It is not he but the nation of Israel that is in rebellion against Moses, and they have been throughout their history (7:9, 35, 39, 51, 52).

Luke alerted us to the theme that a prophet like Moses would one day appear, when he earlier captured a point Peter made in the temple courts (3:22). Peter said that the Jews' appointed Messiah ascended until the time when God would restore all things. At that juncture Peter referred to Moses' statement that God will raise up a prophet like him from among the people — and that he must be listened to. Now Stephen reminds his hearers that Moses prophesied of the coming of a prophet like himself. Thus, they ought not reject outright the claims that Jesus fulfills the requirements.

As in the case of Joseph, Moses becomes a prototype of Christ in Luke's account. As Moses narrowly escaped death at the hands of Pharaoh (7:21), the infant Jesus was saved from Herod. Moses was "no ordinary child" (7:20). So was Jesus (Luke 2:52). Moses grew in wisdom and stature (7:22). So did Jesus (Luke 2:52). Moses was mighty in word and deed. Luke says the same thing of Jesus (Luke 24:19). Moses urged two fighting Israelites to make peace (7:26). The theme of peace was characteristic of Jesus' ministry (Luke 1:79; 2:14, 29; Acts 10:36). And, most directly, Moses is said to be a type of the Prophet-Messiah (Acts 7:37).

Stephen says that Moses "thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not" (7:25). This Moses-rejection theme is strong in Stephen's speech (7:23-29; 35). Like Moses, Jesus was sent to save his own people, but they rejected him. Stephen chastises the Sanhedrin for rejecting the Righteous One (Jesus) in the same way that their ancestors failed to recognize who Moses was (7:52).

#### Luke would undoubtedly expect his Christian readers to see here a parallel between Moses and Jesus as the saviors of God's people, whether or not Stephen's hearers would catch the point: the behavior of the Jews in refusing to recognize Jesus as Savior was of a piece with their earlier rejection of Moses (7:52). [Marshall, 140.]

In his speech, Stephen emphasizes Israel's rejection of God, of the law, and especially their Messiah. Thus, he draws a strong parallel between Israel's treatment of Moses and the Jews' treatment of Jesus. Stephen will drive this point home in a final, scathing indictment of the Sanhedrin (7:51-53). Stephen emphasizes that God's redemptive power was given to his people outside of Judea. In the Moses section this point is driven home by a repetition of non-Holy Land locations in which God interacted with Moses. God raised up Moses in Egypt (7:17-22); he provided for the rejected Moses in Midian (7:29); he commissioned Moses in the desert near Mount Sinai (7:30-34). God pronounced Mount Sinai to be "holy ground." Even though it is the most important place of Old Testament revelation, Sinai is outside the Holy Land. It has no sanctity of its own (7:30-34).

Stephen notes that Moses was sent back to Egypt — not Israel — to do God's will. God delivered his people within this pagan nation as well as at the Red Sea and the wilderness (7:35-36).

#### Contrary to popular piety of the day in its veneration of "the Holy Land"...no place on earth — even though given as an inheritance by God himself — can be claimed to possess such sanctity or be esteemed in such a way as to preempt God's further working on behalf of his people. By this method Stephen was attempting to clear the way for the proclamation of the centrality of Jesus in the nation's worship, life and thought. [Longenecker, 341-342.]

As Abraham was called out of the world — out of Ur and Haran — Moses had to flee Egypt to Midian. In a second step, he left Midian, and finally was called out of Egypt with the children of Israel. Stephen is making the point that these men were ready to answer the call to come out of their society and follow God. Is Stephen giving the assembled Sanhedrin a hint that they must think about coming out of their society, which was centered on the temple and the law?

### Stephen and the law (7:38-43)

Stephen describes Moses as one to whom an angel spoke on Mount Sinai, and who "received living words to pass on to us" (7:38). Here he counters the charge that he blasphemed Moses and spoke against the law. In effect, he turned the community's Scriptures upon itself. Stephen speaks in warm tones of Moses as the mediator between God and his people, "the assembly [Greek, _ekklesia,_ which usually means "church"] in the wilderness" (7:38). Christian readers would probably see a parallel between the wandering of Israel in the desert and their own pilgrimage with Jesus through life (Hebrews 12:18-24).

Stephen then points out that Moses "received living words to pass on to us" (7:38). By calling the words "living," he implies that they have relevance for him and his audience. However, since Moses himself pointed to Someone beyond himself who _must_ be listened to, God's revelation and work cannot be limited to the law Moses had given the nation (John 1:17). There is additional revelation from God that the people must not reject.

Then comes the turning point in Stephen's speech. He says of Israel's reaction to Moses' teaching and law: "Our ancestors refused to obey him" (7:39). Stephen's hearers claimed he had blasphemed the law (and, hence, Moses), claiming it was done away by Jesus. Ironically, Stephen retorted, his hearers belong to a nation that had rejected the law from the beginning, and the Prophet when he came. Stephen then catalogues a litany of disobedient acts by the nation in the wilderness. They rejected Moses (hence God) and made an idol — the golden calf — and worshipped it. In their hearts they turned back to Egypt. Thus, "God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars" (7:42). Stephen quotes Amos 5:25-27 to support his assertion that this particularly detestable form of idolatry caused God to, in effect, to hide himself from Israel.

Stephen deals with the question: with whom is God working? The Jews may offer sacrifices and offerings at the temple, and even consider it as the place of God's presence. They may venerate the law and be quite zealous for it. But it may be that the Jews are not really acting like God's people after all. And if they are not, they like ancient Israel may be sent into "exile beyond Babylon" (7:43).

What is it about Moses they reject? Most importantly, they are not listening to the Prophet (Messiah) Moses said _must_ be listened to. Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint have "Damascus" and not "Babylon" in Amos 5:27, a scripture Stephen quoted in 7:43. Probably the reason Stephen took this liberty with the text is that the Babylonian exile meant more to his hearers, since that is the one the Jews went into and returned from. This use of Scripture reminds us the Bible is a living book, and must be made relevant to the needs of all generations. Babylon was the place "beyond Damascus" that Amos had prophesied.

Stephen is saying that if they do not listen to the Prophet, they will suffer a fate worse than the Babylonian captivity. And as Luke's readers may know, the Jews by and large do reject Jesus, and a worse fate does befall them. After a ravaging four-year war with the Romans, Jerusalem was captured, and the temple destroyed in A.D. 70, never to be rebuilt.

### Tabernacle/temple (7:44-45)

In verse 44 Stephen begins to discuss the "tabernacle of the covenant law," the movable center of worship the Israelites used in the wilderness. He only briefly mentions Solomon's temple. The tabernacle was the center and focus of worship in Israel from the time it was made at the beginning of the wilderness wandering until King Solomon's reign. David wanted to provide a permanent dwelling place for the tabernacle's furniture, the ark in particular, in Jerusalem (Psalm 132:5). David expressed his desire to build a temple, and the prophet Nathan thought it a good idea (2 Samuel 7:1-3).

However, the word of the Lord came to Nathan with a different message for David regarding a permanent temple. Nathan was told by God to pass the message on to David that he didn't need a permanent house from which to manifest his glory: "I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling" (verse 6). It would seem that God did not particularly _want_ a house built in his honor. Instead, God told David that God would build David a "house" — a dynasty (verse 13).

The point of Stephen's discourse on the tabernacle seems to be that God was better served when his presence was revealed by means of a moveable structure. This would have reduced the tendency to institutionalize worship. It underscores Stephen's contention that the Jews need to reorient their faith from a temple to the Messiah.

#### Stephen seems to have viewed the epitome of Jewish worship in terms of the tabernacle, not the temple. Very likely this was because he felt the mobility of the tabernacle was a restraint on the status quo mentality that had grown up around the temple. [Longenecker, 346.]

After tacitly praising the tabernacle era, Stephen proceeds to criticize the Jewish idea of the temple as the high point of their religion. He says of the temple, "The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands" (7:48). To paraphrase his thought, Stephen was saying, "Don't think that God lives in monuments erected by human beings." (Paul said the same thing about pagan temples. In Acts 17:24, he said to his audience in Athens: "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands." Jews frequently criticized pagans for their hand-made idols, and Stephen is using the very same word to point out that their temple is also made by human hands.)

But the Jews made the temple their own private preserve. This had the effect in their minds of making God something of a caged bird, whose working was limited to Jerusalem, its institutions, land and people. That would mean that the only way a person could be saved is to become a Jew. But that effectively halts the advance of God's universal purpose to work with all nations. There is a lesson here for all churches — with their own temples, churches, basilicas, holy places, systems of worship, theology and credos. God can work outside of established religions. He works wherever and however he pleases, and we must not limit him in our minds.

### Concession or command? (7:44-50)

The prophets long ago warned the people against a false confidence in the temple and the rituals surrounding it. It was a mistake to think that because God "lived" in the temple, a sinning nation would automatically be preserved (Isaiah 1:10-17; Jeremiah 7:1-34). Stephen seems to imply that the temple was more of a concession on God's part to human desire, than his real purpose. This criticizing attitude toward the temple is new in this early stage of the church. Earlier, Luke had gone out of his way to show the apostles and the church worshipping at the temple.

#### Stephen adopted a position unlike that of any other writer in the New Testament. Where others saw the temple as having once had a place in the divine economy, though no longer, Stephen saw it as a mistake from the first. In his view, the temple was never intended by God. [Williams, 130.]

A parallel situation to the building of the temple might be Israel's desire to have a king. God allowed it, and he even chose Israel's kings, but he was displeased by the situation (1 Samuel 8:1-21). Once the institution was in place, God worked with it, and even spoke of preserving it. But a king brought all the evils of a state apparatus and bureaucracy. It created a government insensitive to the needs of the people and trusting in itself rather than God. Humanity's experience with all sorts of governments through the ages underscores the validity of the point.

In the same way, the stationary temple created an ossified religious government in Jerusalem, and gave rise to an inflexible state of mind. The temple became the domain of a political-religious machine that took advantage of its people. An unpretentious and mobile tabernacle around which worship was based would have made it more difficult to centralize religious power. A tabernacle that moved from place to place would also remind people that God is not limited to one location. Ironically, this was what Solomon himself said when he dedicated the original temple (1 Kings 8:27), and so did the prophet Isaiah later on (66:1). God is too big to be squeezed into a building. But the point was soon forgotten.

Stephen is re-echoing the thought, plainly saying to the Sanhedrin that temple worship can create a narrow view of God's salvation, thus limiting his purpose.

#### The Temple which should have become their greatest blessing was in fact their greatest curse; they had come to worship it instead of worshipping God. They had finished up with a Jewish God who lived in Jerusalem rather than a God of all men whose dwelling was the whole universe. [Barclay, 60.]

Yet, the glory of the Lord had been in Solomon's temple (1 Kings 8:10). Had Stephen gone too far in his criticism of the temple? David J. Williams points out that the operative word in Stephen's denunciation of temple worship was the word "live" (7:48). The Jews should not have supposed that God's presence could be found _only_ in the temple and nowhere else.

#### Stephen may well have agreed that God could be found in the temple, but this word [live] would suggest that he was confined there, and as Stephen had maintained throughout, that was simply not so. Had not God been found in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in the desert? [Williams, 142.]

God can be found and worshipped anywhere on the earth, not just in the Jerusalem temple. The logical conclusion is that people of God can be found and have a relationship with him at the "place" where _they_ were, not in a restricted "place," such as a temple. Jesus stated this principle when he said a time was coming when people would no longer worship the Father in Jerusalem. They would worship him anywhere they happened to be, and do it "in the Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). One does not need to be in a special place at a special time in special circumstances to worship God. Since the Holy Spirit is given to whomsoever is called and responds to God in faith, there is "a new understanding of 'the holy place' in terms of a community (rather than a physical shrine)" (Williams, page 136).

Thus, it is the people of God themselves who constitute "the temple" where God lives through the Holy Spirit. They are "members of his household," and in Christ they "become a holy temple" (Ephesians 2:19-21). Paul alludes to this principle on several occasions, and it seems to have been the common understanding of the church that it was "God's temple" (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16). Perhaps Stephen was about to go on to describe what was implied by his criticism of the temple. That is, God's presence is not in the temple, but he is "dwelling" among people who put their faith in the Righteous One — Jesus.

### Stephen's indictment (7:51-53)

Stephen seems to break off suddenly from his cataloguing of Israel's history. He suddenly begins a blistering attack on his hearers. Commentators speculate that Steven's blunt criticism of the temple may have created a violent clamor in the audience. The commotion in the Sanhedrin may have caused Stephen to break off from his speech, and strongly censure his listeners.

If Stephen had continued his speech, he may have made his point about the temple more clear, and further clarified just who God's people are. This would have propelled him forward to the usual appeal: accept the resurrected and glorified Christ as Messiah. But Stephen's speech took a turn into direct denunciation. There is no more talk about the faithful patriarchs being "our fathers." Now, Stephen talks about his hearers' ancestors, the sinning Israelites (7:51).

Stephen insists that the Sanhedrin's refusal to acknowledge Jesus — and his murder — reflected the council's negative attitude towards God's messengers throughout Israel's history. Though Joseph was to be his brothers' deliverer, they hated him. Moses, who led the emancipation of Israel, was repudiated by the people. The prophets who announced the coming of the Righteous One — and who urged the nation toward faith in God — had been killed by their ancestors (Matthew 23:29-37). Luke had established this point in his Gospel.

Stephen says that his listeners are like their fathers in every way. Sin, rebellion against God, and rejection of his purpose characterizes Israel's history — and the Sanhedrin's. The council members are stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! (7:51). The Sanhedrin know exactly what Stephen means by this. Such words were often used by God in characterizing Israel's attitude toward him. [Exodus 33:3, 5; 34:9; Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 9:6, 13; 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:6.] The speech is a bitter and abrupt denunciation of the leaders' rebellion. His listeners resist the Holy Spirit. They betrayed and murdered the Righteous One, of whom Moses spoke. _They_ are not keeping the law that came from God through angels.

Paul later notes a similar rejection of God's calling by the Jews. He described the churches in Judea as suffering from the Jews "who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last" (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16).

### Stephen is stoned (7:54-58)

Stephen places the death of Jesus squarely on the shoulders of the Sanhedrin, the spiritual leaders of the nation (Luke 24:20; Acts 4:10; 5:30). (Peter had been more charitable, saying in Acts 3:17 that the people killed their Savior in ignorance.) The Sanhedrin's response to Stephen's speech is rage. When they hear Stephen's condemnation, they are "furious and gnashed their teeth at him" (7:54). Then comes the _coup de grace._ At the height of the Sanhedrin's wrath, Stephen, "full of the Holy Spirit" (7:55), has a vision of the glory of God, and Jesus standing at his right hand.

Just a few years earlier, Jesus stood in front of this same group. The high priest asked Jesus if he were the Messiah. Jesus answered: "I am...and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). This image of Jesus at God's right hand is based on Psalm 110:1, a verse frequently used to support Jesus' Messiahship, particularly his resurrection and glorification (Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34; 5:31). In Acts 7:55 Jesus is said to be standing rather than sitting. Both were metaphors for being in the presence of God (Zechariah 3:1-8; Isaiah 6:1). But why is he standing? Elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus is sitting (Acts 2:34; Mark 16:19; Hebrews 1:3, 13).

#### The thought may be that he had risen to receive Stephen into heaven or to plead his case in the heavenly court, as though two trials were in progress: this one, conducted by the Sanhedrin, and another, which alone would determine Stephen's fate [Luke 12:8]. [Williams, 146.]

This is also the only time that the phrase "the son of Man" appears in the New Testament outside the Gospels, the only time it is spoken by a disciple. It has its roots in Daniel 7:13. The title is probably meant to convey the fact that Stephen saw Jesus in his role as the spurned Messiah. He was to suffer and be rejected by the Sanhedrin — the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law (Luke 9:22).

#### This probably explains why the Son of man was seen standing, rather than sitting at God's right hand (2:34). He is standing as an advocate to plead Stephen's cause before God and to welcome him into God's presence. [Marshall, 149.]

Stephen's vision confirms Jesus' claim, which the Sanhedrin must have remembered. The Jewish council is being condemned for having rejected their Savior, and having him executed. When Jesus originally told the council that they would see him at God's right hand, it reacted by saying that Jesus had blasphemed and should be put to death (verse 64). Stephen is now making the same claim for Jesus as Jesus had made for himself. This brings the council to a frenzied hatred. Stephen is judged to be blaspheming, and the penalty for blasphemy was stoning to death (Deuteronomy 13:6).

F.F. Bruce wrote, "Unless the judges were prepared to admit that their former decision was tragically mistaken, they had no option but to find Stephen guilty of blasphemy as well." [Bruce, 155.] Luke's account indicates that the Sanhedrin is turning into a vicious mob. "Yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him" (7:57-58). Stephen becomes the first martyr to die for the name of Jesus.

There is no formal trial. A Roman form of execution was not used — Stephen is stoned. Even with a trial and guilty verdict, Rome has not given the Sanhedrin any right to put people to death for this offense, and they are supposed to confer with the Roman authority regarding capital punishment cases (John 18:31). This shows the intense anger of the Sanhedrin — they were so angry that they did not follow proper procedures.

Would the Sanhedrin get into difficulty with the Roman authority for overstepping its legal jurisdiction? Perhaps conditions were such in Judea that Roman power was weak or ineffectual at the time. Josephus describes a similar situation in which the high priest Ananus killed James in A.D. 62, the leader of the Jerusalem church congregation. [Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:200-203; and see Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_ 2.23.16.] This may have occurred after the procurator of Judea, Festus, died and before Albinus arrived to assume his jurisdiction.

In the same way, some commentators conjecture that Stephen's martyrdom may have occurred in the mid-30s, during the final years of Pilate's governorship over Judea, when his power was growing weaker. Whatever the situation or reason, it appears that the Sanhedrin stoned Stephen to death, usurping Roman law, and got away with it.

Many Christians once held a belief that _all_ Jews were responsible for killing Christ, and thus were guilty of his death. This is a gross misunderstanding. It could equally be said that the Jews and Romans were representing all humanity, and that _all_ humans are guilty of his death. The martyrdom of Jews in numerous pogroms since Christ — often with the church's complicity — is a blight on Christianity. While Stephen's speech is "anti-Jewish" in the sense that it condemns the Jewish leaders who were present, it should not be misconstrued as a polemic against all Jews. That is not what Stephen had in mind, as the next verses show. Almost all the early Christians, including Stephen, _were_ Jews. When _they_ use the term "Jews," it is obvious that they do not mean _all_ Jews. But when non-Jewish people use the term "Jews," it is not obvious, and needs to be clarified.

###

### "Lord, please forgive them" (7:59-60)

As he lay dying, Stephen asks that the risen Jesus receive his spirit, and that his killers be forgiven. Stephen is following his Savior, who also asks forgiveness for his executioners (Luke 23:34). Stephen shows the same spirit of faith and forgiveness as characterized Jesus. Stephen accepts Jesus' bid to come and follow him to the ultimate degree. The way Luke crafts the story of Stephen, he emerges as a type of Christ. Detail after detail in Stephen's sermon and death remind us of the life and particularly the last days and death of Jesus.

The same power and prophetic spirit that characterize Jesus is at work in his disciples. As he was dying on the cross, Jesus said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). But Stephen commits his spirit to Jesus directly. That is a striking difference. Words applied to the Father are now addressed to the Son. For the early church, Jesus was in the role of God, in the sense of being the one who saves us. Even at this early date in its history, the church already had a "high" Christology.

### Final thoughts

When Luke writes the book of Acts, somewhere between A.D. 62 and 85, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Jews will not be converted en masse. In fact, Jews continue to be the greatest persecutors of the church. If Luke writes after A.D. 70, then the temple no longer exists. Decades had elapsed, but Jesus neither returned to save the Jews (and the world), nor to glorify his church. No doubt there is great disappointment and wonderment in the church over these matters. The example of Stephen provides a ready case to illustrate the point that the Christian's duty is to serve God and have faith in Christ. Stephen also provides an example of Luke's main thesis in Acts. The growth of the church and the spread of the gospel is not the work of human beings. Rather, both increase because the Holy Spirit is at work among his people.

The apostles and the Jerusalem church thought that Stephen was a good choice to be a widows' helper and to take care of daily assistance (i.e., wait on tables). But he ends up doing nothing of the sort, so far as we can tell. Almost by accident and through the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit, Stephen jumps to the fore in understanding the deepest implications of the gospel message. (Meanwhile, another widow's helper — Philip — does some of the most amazing miracles in Jesus' name. He, rather than the Twelve, pushes the gospel out beyond Jerusalem to Samaria and the coast of Judea.)

The example of Stephen and Philip is Luke's way of saying that the story is not about the work of super-star favorites, nor of planned programs. The Holy Spirit is leading the way, opening new vistas of spiritual understanding, thrusting the gospel into new geographical areas. At best, God's human servants are struggling to keep up the pace. We see this almost amusing pattern throughout the book of Acts.

Stephen's speech breaks new ground in the church's understanding of the role of Old Testament tradition for the church. Even though Stephen upholds the validity of Jewish law and worship, he marginalizes it by implying that neither land, law nor the temple are the center of worship. Christ is the center. In fact, Stephen says the Jews have never kept the law (in its real intent) and always resist the Holy Spirit. They did not have the right "mind" to be the people of God, since they lack the Holy Spirit. (Only the _new_ congregation of Israel — the church — had been given the Spirit. At this point is it thoroughly Jewish as well, but that will soon change.)

Stephen carries the message of good news to new levels of understanding as far as what makes any people a people of God. His message also contains the seeds for understanding that Israel's forms of worship were just that — passing forms of worship. In Christ, a radical reinterpretation of worship, of God's presence, of his purpose with the human family and so on is needed. The Twelve have so far not said anything about the worship of the Jews as needing a radical transformation. They go to the temple and make it their center of worship, implying its institutions are to continue. They assume the Jews as an ethnic group are the people of God. The only problem is that they were guilty of rejecting and killing their Messiah.

Stephen's speech presages some dramatic changes in the worship of God. The book of Hebrews, a fundamental assessment of these changes, is a fuller statement of what Stephen pointed to. Ironically, Stephen leaped ahead of the apostles in understanding. Perhaps he did not really foresee all that he pointed to, but we have no way of knowing. Just as the resurrection of Jesus vindicated his message and ministry, the martyrdom of Stephen, and his vision of the risen Jesus, vindicates the accuracy of Stephen's understanding of the law.

The death of Stephen provides Luke with an important literary transition. With Stephen's death and his re-evaluation of Jewish faith, the story of the Jerusalem church is complete. Luke has shown how the apostles and others were witnesses in Jerusalem. Now it is time for Luke to show the gospel radiating out to "Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (1:8).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

##   
About the Author

**Paul Kroll** is a journalist who worked for Grace Communion International, writing hundreds of articles for our magazines. He wrote this commentary on Acts in the mid 1990s, but we were not able to print the commentary then. We are happy to update it in 2012 and publish it as a series of e-books. This work has been edited by **Michael Morrison,** instructor in New Testament for Grace Communion Seminary.

## About the publisher...

Grace Communion International is a Christian denomination with about 50,000 members, worshiping in about 900 congregations in almost 100 nations and territories. We began in 1934 and our main office is in North Carolina. In the United States, we are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and similar organizations in other nations. We welcome you to visit our website at www.gci.org.

If you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, we offer help. First, we offer weekly worship services in hundreds of congregations worldwide. Perhaps you'd like to visit us. A typical worship service includes songs of praise, a message based on the Bible, and opportunity to meet people who have found Jesus Christ to be the answer to their spiritual quest. We try to be friendly, but without putting you on the spot. We do not expect visitors to give offerings—there's no obligation. You are a guest.

To find a congregation, write to one of our offices, phone us or visit our website. If we do not have a congregation near you, we encourage you to find another Christian church that teaches the gospel of grace.

We also offer personal counsel. If you have questions about the Bible, salvation or Christian living, we are happy to talk. If you want to discuss faith, baptism or other matters, a pastor near you can discuss these on the phone or set up an appointment for a longer discussion. We are convinced that Jesus offers what people need most, and we are happy to share the good news of what he has done for all humanity. We like to help people find new life in Christ, and to grow in that life. Come and see why we believe it's the best news there could be!

Our work is funded by members of the church who donate part of their income to support the gospel. Jesus told his disciples to share the good news, and that is what we strive to do in our literature, in our worship services, and in our day-to-day lives.

If this e-book has helped you and you want to pay some expenses, all donations are gratefully welcomed, and in several nations, are tax-deductible. If you can't afford to give anything, don't worry about it. It is our gift to you. To make a donation online, go to www.gci.org/participate/donate.

Thank you for letting us share what we value most—Jesus Christ. The good news is too good to keep it to ourselves.

See our website for hundreds of articles, locations of our churches,  
addresses in various nations, audio and video messages, and much more.

www.gci.org

Grace Communion International

3120 Whitehall Park Drive

Charlotte, NC 28273

800-423-4444

## Speaking of Life...

Dr. Joseph Tkach, president of Grace Communion International, comments in a video blog each week, giving a biblical perspective on how we live in the light of God's love. Most programs are about three minutes long – available in video, audio, and text. Go to www.speakingoflife.org.

## You're Included...

Dr. J. Michael Feazell talks to leading Trinitarian theologians about the good news that God loves you, wants you, and includes you in Jesus Christ. Most programs are about 28 minutes long. Our guests have included:

Ray Anderson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas A. Campbell, Duke Divinity School

Elmer Colyer, U. of Dubuque Theological Seminary

Gordon Fee, Regent College

Trevor Hart, University of St. Andrews

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

C. Baxter Kruger, Perichoresis

Jeff McSwain, Reality Ministries

Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University

Paul Molnar, St. John's University

Cherith Fee Nordling, Antioch Leadership Network

Andrew Root, Luther Seminary

Alan Torrance, University of St. Andrews

Robert T. Walker, Edinburgh University

N.T. Wright, University of St. Andrews

William P. Young, author of _The Shack_

Programs are available free for viewing and downloading at www.youreincluded.org.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

##

### Grace Communion Seminary

Ministry based on the life and love of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Grace Communion Seminary serves the needs of people engaged in Christian service who want to grow deeper in relationship with our Triune God and to be able to more effectively serve in the church.

### Why study at Grace Communion Seminary?

##### • Worship: to love God with all your mind.

##### • Service: to help others apply truth to life.

##### • Practical: a balanced range of useful topics for ministry.

##### • Trinitarian theology: a survey of theology with the merits of a Trinitarian perspective. We begin with the question, "Who is God?" Then, "Who are we in relationship to God?" In this context, "How then do we serve?"

##### • Part-time study: designed to help people who are already serving in local congregations. There is no need to leave your current ministry. Full-time students are also welcome.

##### • Flexibility: your choice of master's level continuing education courses or pursuit of a degree: Master of Pastoral Studies or Master of Theological Studies.

##### • Affordable, accredited study: Everything can be done online.

For more information, go to www.gcs.edu. Grace Communion Seminary is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, www.deac.org. The Accrediting Commission is listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

