Acts 5, 6, 7 Sunday School Notes

Here are some of my notes for Sunday, June 15, 2008 based on the Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum

 Reference works cited include:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III 

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer

 4) Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger 

5) Who’s Who In the Age of Jesus by Geza Vermes

 

Acts 5:12-27- starting the story again in the middle. At Acts 5:12 we find the apostles meeting at Solomon’s Colonnade, where the preaching is winning converts and continual miracles are spreading the fame of the group throughout Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin arrests the apostles and throw them in jail pending a trial, only to have an angel free the apostles and send them back to the colonnade. The Sanhedrin sends the captain of the temple and guards to re-arrest the apostles, but one look at the crowd around the apostles leads the captain to politely ask the apostles to appear before the Sanhedrin.

Acts 5:28- that name: The Sanhedrin have branded the Christians a cult already, and thus follow procedure for not speaking heretical names.
filled Jerusalem: the apostles have disobeyed the Sanhedrin previous “cease and desist” by continuing to speak and heal and becoming even more famous than before.
bring this man’s blood on us: The council doesn’t bother asking the glaringly obvious question of how the apostles walked out of prison. Instead they focus on what they perceive as their legal strong points: the apostles’ direct disobedience to a Sanhedrin order and the apparent slander of the council in the matter of Jesus’ death, who was executed by the Romans.

Acts 5:29- We must obey God rather than men: Peter replies with the apostles’ strongest point
Acts 5:30- God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you had murdered: Peter now admits charge, and repeats it
by hanging Him on a tree: common way in ancient Judea to refer to crucifixion by first century AD.
Acts 5:31- God exalted this man to His right hand as ruler and Savior: repeating that God has overruled the Sanhedrin by raising Jesus. Savior, Greek soter, is a common term for gods and rulers in ancient times, referring to one who delivers from most any form of evil: physical, moral, national, natural.
to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins: God raised and exalted Jesus in order to save Israel. Gentiles have yet to come into the apostles’ view.

Acts 5:32- We are witnesses of these things: here is the apostles twin reasons for continual witness:
1. The apostles can only truthfully speak of what they have seen
2. Jesus commissioned the apostles as His witnesses
so is the Holy Spirit: who witnesses by enabling speech of believers and by working miracles.
whom God has given to those who obey Him- Sanhedrin hasn’t the Spirit, thus aren’t obeying God.

Acts 5:33- they were enraged: literally, they were sawn through. Cut to the bone.
and wanted to kill them- Peter’s defiance, his constant blaming the Sanhedrin for Jesus’ death, and now his placing Christian believers above the elders of Israel in God’s sight outrages at least part of the Sanhedrin.

Acts 5:34- Pharisees: Here is NT evidence of Pharisees on the Sanhedrin. Pharisee is Greek derivation of Hebrew term for “separated”. The Hasidim of Hellenistic Judea studied the law and opposed Hellenization, under the Roman occupation grew into the Pharisee sect, who believed in resurrection, the spirit world, a form of compatibilism “predestination and free will co-exist”, and followed the ancestral principles that subsequently became the Oral law. The Pharisees were a minority on the Sanhedrin, but very popular, so the majority Sadducees typically followed Pharisaic principles to keep the public happy.(Bruce. Fitzmyer)
Gamaliel: Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, active about 25-50 AD, typically considered the grandson of Hillel and grandfather of Gamaliel II. He was generally considered the last “true” Pharisee. (Bruce, Fitzmyer, Vermes)

Acts 5:36- Theudas: A problem here because he is put before Judas of Galilee, when historically Judas was first. Theudas was a false messiah (one of very many in the day) who promised to part the Jordan for some four hundred followers. The Roman procurator Cuspius Fadus sent soldiers to deal with him, resulting in many dead followers and Theudas’ head on display in Jerusalem. This must have happened in 44-46 AD, when Fadus ruled Judea, and so Josephus recounts the affair. People have accounted for the apparent discrepancy in dates with three points:
1. Theudas was a common name
2. After Herod the Great died (4 BC) there were many messianic pretenders
3. Luke is a very reliable historian overall (Bruce, Fitzmyer, Vermes)

Acts 5:37- Judas the Galilean: Herod the Great died in 4 BC. A Judas son of Hezekiah, perhaps this same man, raided a weapons depot in Sepphoris and armed his followers in an attempt to control or even become king of Galilee. By 6 AD, Herod Archelaus was deposed as ethnarch of Judea, which Rome made a province, and thus required a census to determine taxation for the region. The census was made the responsibility of P. Sculpius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, who was already conducting census of Syria-Cilicia. Quirinius likely gave the census into the hands of his regional subordinates, in Judea one Coponius, first prefect of Judea. Judas of Galilee, together with a Pharisee named Sadduk, revolted against the census on the grounds that Jews should not give the produce of God’s kingdom (Judea) to a pagan ruler (Caesar). The revolt was crushed, but the idea lived on in the form of the Zealots. (Bruce)

Acts 5:39- Gamaliel advises following the precept laid down in Deu 18:20-22(Fitzmyer)
Acts 5:40- had them flogged: Deu 25:3 limits flogging to 40 lashes. To ensure the law was kept, “40 less 1” became standard flogging practice among the Jews, as shown in Josephus and 2 Cor 11:24(Fitzmyer)
Acts 5:41- rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be dishonored on behalf of the name- think on that reaction, a standard one among early Christians in the NT and Apostolic Fathers.

Acts 6:1- mathetai: In the Gospels, this was strictly a term describing the 12. In Acts from here to 27:16 applied to all Christians.

Hebraioi- presuambly Jewish Christians who could speak at least some Greek but worshipped in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Hellenistai- Greek- only speaking Jewish Christians, presumably immigrants to Judea from other lands, who worshipped in services using only Greek.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)
widows- The Jerusalem church became proverbial for being poor in NT, so much so that the name for later Jewish Christian heretical sect, the Ebionites, derives from Hebrew ebyon, “poor”.
It is entirely possible that any Temple organization for the relief of the poor early on refused to aid known Christians, though the historicity of a Temple poor relief system is debated. Either way, the poor Christians were plainly dependent on their fellow believers.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)

Acts 6:2- trapeza, table, can be either a table where one eats, or a desk used by moneychangers/banks. Thus the apostles may be referring to passing out either money, food, or both to the poor here.(Fitzmyer)

Acts 6:3- Why seven men? Presumably just it’s symbolic significance as a “perfect” number.
It’s hard to know if the seven deacons were restricted to aiding the poor, and subsequently became preachers, or if that was part of their duties from the beginning. Certainly we know Philip and Stephen were great speakers, Stephen from the beginning it seems, and Philip perhaps after the apostles fled Jerusalem.

Acts 6:5- Stephen: first mentioned because of his prominent part to come.
Philip: second in list, second in prominence, will be evangelizing for a good twenty years. His four prophesying daughters are mentioned in the Apostolic fathers much later as well.
Nicolaus: interesting because he is specifically stated to be a proselyte, a non-Jew who became a Jew, then subsequently converted to Christianity. Thus he is likely the first “Gentile” leader of the Christian church. His name is associated with the later Nikolatian heretics, who presumably took some teaching of this good Christian leader and stretched said teaching into heresy, perhaps something concerning the apostolic decree of Acts 15:29.(Bruce)

Acts 6:7- One of Luke’s customary summary verses about the spread of the faith.
a large group of priests became obedient to the faith: as there were apparently many thousands of priests available to serve in the Temple year around, any number of priests may have converted without seriously affecting the pool of available priests.

Acts 6:8- full of grace- Greek charis. Might mean either:
1. full of spiritual gifts
2. full of charm- winning speaker and personality.(Bruce)
Textual variant here, many manuscripts changing “grace” to “faith” to match description of 6:5. Typically, some manuscripts also try to have it both ways and say Stephen was full of “grace and faith”
power- dunamis, presumably divine power that leads to the “great wonders and signs” Stephen performs. Still, with the mention of charis and dunamis separate from the great wonders and signs, one can’t help but wonder if this is not a description of Stephen’s personality.

Acts 6:9- Freedman’s Synagogue: Two puzzles in one.
There is much debate over existence of synagogues as public buildings at this time, but there are mentions of synagogues as places rather than gatherings of people in Josephus, and one or two inscriptions as well from the first century AD, pretty well proving the existence of synagogue buildings. There is an impressive archaeological site at Gamala that provides good evidence as well. The lack of more synagogue ruins may be because most synagogues were common public rooms used for the religious gatherings, not specifically-built buildings for that single purpose. (Witherington)
Traditionally synagogues are thought to have originated out of the Babylonian Exile, and the habit of meeting for scripture study and prayer continued even after restoration of the Temple..

How many synagogues are in view here is another debate, thanks to the ambiguous Greek. As many as five, one for each group named, and as few as one, assuming all the non-Judean Jews met in the Freedmen’s synagogue. Libertinos is Greek for a freed slave or his son. These freed slaves have been suggested as former members of the imperial household, or the slaves Pompey sent to Rome after occupying Judea in 63 BC. The suggestion that Libertinos relates to a city in Libya and thus makes the following mention of Cyrene and Alexandria a North African geographical survey is considered more clever than plausible. The mention of Cilicia is considered important because Tarsus was its capital, and thus Saul may well have attended this synagogue, despite his linguistic abilities in Hebrew and Aramaic. Saul then likely was one of those who argued with Stephen and lost. (Bruce, Fitzmyer, Witherington)

Acts 6:11
blasphemous words against Moses and God: this doesn’t seem to match later rabbinic rules for blasphemy, which explicitly required using the divine name. As for Moses, perhaps Exodus 22:27 may have a part in that charge. In both cases it seems a broader definition of blasphemy than later Jewish interpretation allowed. Perhaps blasphemy was less defined in the First Century AD, or perhaps, as Luke indicates, the Freedmen were very desperate to shut Stephen up, since it is all a trumped-up charge anyway.

Acts 6:12
They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes: the induced men and the Freedmen manged to turn against Stephen the three groups which until now had supported the Christians: the people, the elders (Pharisees?), and the scribes.
so they came up, dragged him off, and took him to the Sanhedrin: See how ominous things are. This time they can seize a Christian and take him to the Sanhedrin, which both has jurisdiction here, but also is doubtless known to harbor many members who hate the Christians.

Acts 6:13
presented false witnesses: an obvious violation of the commandment, but these are men willing to break a commandment to serve their notion of God’s law.

this holy place- Fitzmyer notes that “this place” is used by Jews as a synonym for the Temple or God himself in ancient times. (Fitzmyer)

Acts 6:14
Jesus will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed own to us: which are strange charges if Stephen declared Jesus the Messiah, since it was commonly supposed many things would be forever altered by the messiah. Of course Jesus was not and is not the sort of messiah Judaism looks for, which accounts for much of their problems here. The customs of Moses are most likely what later became the Oral Law.

There is some debate as to whether these charges are actually things Stephen said, perhaps exaggerated by the false witnesses, or if Stephen apparent neglect of most of the charges in his long speech is because he reports accurately to the Sanhedrin what he truly has said. (Witherington)

Acts 6:15
like the face of an angel: either that Stephen’s face is somehow radiant, or perhaps more likely, that he was remarkably calm and happy in the face of apparently awful circumstances.

Acts 7:51
stiff-necked people: comparable to an ox that won’t go as the plow reins tell him, a common phrase for the rebellious Exodus generation in the OT.

uncircumcised hearts and ears- another OT reference, from Lev and several places in Jeremiah.
resisting the Holy Spirit- continuing to speak of his hearers rebellion against God and comparing them to their ancestors, whom they know scripture repeatedly condemned.

Acts 7:52
which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute- God’s true prophets were typically poorly received by the Jews, and though the Bible doesn’t record many of the prophets’ deaths (though it mentions their being killed in passing), tradition time and again had them slain by their own people.

Acts 7:53
received the law under the direction of angels: another tradition, part of the Jewish tendency to more and more separate God from his creation, to exalt Him beyond an ability to directly interact with the world. This is also seen in the use of “word of God” in the Targums where the Hebrew originals had “God”. Nevertheless, Stephen is still clearly saying Heaven miraculously has given Israel the Law, yet even so they don’t obey it.

Acts 7:55
Stephen in verse 54 has plainly outraged his listeners beyond rationality. They are maddened like animals, gnashing their teeth at him. Now he has a vision which he reports and which seals his doom.

Jesus standing at the right hand of God: typically Jesus is pictured sitting, enthroned, at God’s side. Here Stephen sees him standing through a vision from the Spirit. Why standing?
1. To welcome first Christian martyr?
2. To bear witness for Stephen in Heaven?

3. To show his participation in Stephen’s trial? My personal favorite, as Jesus repeatedly emphasized, “what you do to the least of mine, you do to me”.

Acts 7:56
Now Stephen recounts his vision, and seals his fate. The use of “son of man” is intriguing, as the Gospels use this term often, but the later NT seems to forget it. A bit of chronological authenticity, perhaps. Certainly it fits the whole pattern of Stephen’s martyrdom, which clears resembles Jesus’ death, and which Luke works to make fit the pattern of Jesus’ death as much as he can. He isn’t finished yet. Here Stephen makes a “son of man” remark that ends his life, just as Jesus had at his trial.

Acts 7:57
The description here is seems to be that of a mob. Screaming, no longer trying to listen, and in violent action. Yet the stoning is carried out according to legal requirements, so some cooler heads must have prevailed before reaching the outskirts of the city. How much was the mob and how much the Freedmen’s scheme to silence Stephen?

Acts 7:58
witnesses laid their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul: Witnesses equals the first stoners, as Deu 17:7 directs, first witnesses, then all Israel. Laying down their robes plainly shows they are acting with forethought now. The fact that Saul watches over the robes is his tacit approval of the execution.
How is it the Jews could execute someone, when Rome was notorious for keeping that right to themselves? The simplest explanation is that Rome allowed the Jews to carry out capital punishment for certain offenses against the Temple, as ancient notices against Gentile trespass posted at the Temple assure us could happen.(Bruce)