Looking at Acts 8:1-3.
With the attack upon Stephen, the persecution of believers by the Jewish leadership began in earnest. Being a believer will now entail paying the price for that belief. Acts 6, 7 and 8 are linked by the subject of persecution. The first 3 verses of this Acts 8 bring the stoning of Stephen to an end, while at the same time marks the beginning of Saul’s activity. Acts 8:1 states that “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.” This is a concluding statement to the events of Chapter 7. It speaks of the attitude of Saul in regard to Stephen’s death; he was in active agreement with it, not just passive consent. The Greek tense indicates he “is agreeing to the action as it proceeds”[1] In doing so, he was following not only the stream of opinion, but his religious loyalty. He saw Stephen as a rebel to religious authority and a religious heretic. Some relate this passage to Acts 26:10 to indicate Saul voted in the Sanhedrin. However, that connection is questionable at best. Whatever the case, it is clear Saul steps up the persecution “beyond measure” (Gal. 1:13).
What the stoning of Stephen does is unleash the hostility of the leadership of Israel against the remnant of believers found in the city of Jerusalem. It was the starting point: “And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (8:1). It was the answer to the offer of the kingdom. “Israel was in the process of confirming its tragic choice to reject Jesus as her Messiah,” comments Toussaint.[2] They will not repent nor listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. This was the first great persecution of believers in Jerusalem. The martyrdom of Stephen and continued persecution starts the push of evangelism away from the Jewish capital. They scattered away from the city into the country (cf. Acts 11:19). It is also clear that the word all does not mean all without exception, but indicates many or most of them scattered. This is clear because there were still believers in the city who were being hunted down and imprisoned. The text also indicates at this point the persecution was limited to the city, since the believers scattered to the countryside of Judea and Samaria.
Some maintain that this persecution was against Hellenistic Jews only.[3] There seems to be two points in its favor: First, Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew. Second, the Apostles stayed in the city because the persecution was against the Hellenistic Jews, not the true Hebrews. The Twelve being homeland Jews did not need to leave the city. However the text does not put that type of limitation on the persecution. It rather seems to indicate an unlimited persecution within the city (cf. 8:3). The text does not distinguish between Hellenistic and homeland Jews. Also Paul later says he was out to destroy the church (Gal. 1:13), in a context that indicates the whole believing assembly, not just a portion of it. He also says he punished believers in every synagogue, not just the Hellenistic synagogues (Acts 26:11).
In light of this persecution, why did the Apostles stay in Jerusalem? Was it because they were homeland Jews, not Hellenistic Jews? Such a view is highly questionable and unlikely. Harrison suggests the Apostles were not the subject of persecution because of their popularity and respect of many in Jerusalem.[4] Others say because of their duty to the believers in Jerusalem. This has some merit. They were commissioned to start at Jerusalem and then to the rest of the world. Their duty to reach Jerusalem had not been accomplished. The apostles knew their future and hope was tied to the city (cf. Luke 12:32; Matt. 19:28 cf. 21:43). While they may be coming to realize that the nation was rejecting the offer of the kingdom, their duty was clearly to stay in the city and continue with their mission. They knew that the Lord had told them that they were to preach repentance to all nations, “beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). No doubt they felt it was still their duty to reach Jerusalem. They saw no reason to change their task, but to remain faithful to preach at Jerusalem.
This section of the text, while centering on persecution, alternates between the persecution and Stephen’s murder. Note the pattern:
Approval of Stephen’s murder (8:1a)
Beginning of Persecution (8:1b)
Burial of Stephen (8:2)
Saul ravaging the church (8:3)
From this pattern we notice how Luke ties in the death of Stephen with the beginning of the Persecution of believers. This section becomes both transitional in character as well as a summary of events connected with Stephen. It makes the transition to why Phillip is ministering in Samaria and sums up the effect of Stephen’s murder.
The burial record almost seems out of place in light of the second half of verse 1. However, it is given to reinforce the connection of persecution with the events of Stephen’s murder. Luke states: “[Some] devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him” (8:2). It may well be that Luke is not only trying to reinforce the connection of persecution with the Stephen event, but also to complete the similarity to Christ’s life and death (cf. Luke 23:50-53). It was done by devout men, a term that is also used of unbelievers. The lamentation reminds us of the ladies in Luke 23:27. It has been pointed out that, “The Mishnah considered open lamentation for someone who had suffered death by stoning as inappropriate.”[5] The Greek word for lamentation is koptos / kopetos (only here in the N.T., cf. LXX, Gen. 50:10; Jer. 6:26), and means a beating of the breast, thus a wailing or lamentation, not simply mourning.[6] This could indicate a defiant act or a belief this was not a legal execution.[7] Interestingly, there is a tradition that Augustine endorsed which puts Gamaliel and Nicodemus (Sanhedrin’s believing members) at the burial, and later buried in the same spot.[8]
“But Saul [began] ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison” (8:3). While the Sadducees made up most of the Sanhedrin, now Saul the Pharisee steps in. Stephen’s execution invigorated Saul’s retaliation against the church. The word ravaging (elumainveto /elumainseto) is found only here in the NT, meaning to make havoc of, or ravage. Knowling says the classical meaning is used of scourging and torturing, of armies causing waste and destruction, and in the medical field the word speaks of the ravages of disease.[9] Barclay notes that it “denotes a brutal and sadistic cruelty.”[10] The severity of the persecution by Saul is reinforced in the text showing this included a house to house search. It was a search and destroy mission that Saul was on.
Again it must be noted the word church has its normal meaning of assembly (OT, congregation—Isa. 7:38), and should not be taken in the universal sense. Peterson explains, “At this critical point in the narrative, that significant title for the people of God in the OT is applied again to Jewish believers in Jesus (5:11; 11:22; 12:1-5).”[11] In Acts the word church always denotes a local congregation or assembly. In this case the impetus of the persecution was against the local remnant in Jerusalem.
[1] Bock, ACTS, 316.
[2] Toussaint, ACTS, 371.
[3] Bruce, ACTS, 162-163; Constable, NOTES ON ACTS, 119.
[4] Harrison, ACTS, 139.
[5] Constable, 119.
[6] Knowling, ACTS, 209; Larkin, ACTS, 124, notes that the NIV downplays the public aspect with its wording mourned deeply.
[7] Peterson, ACTS, 276; Bock, 319.
[8] Knowling, 210.
[9] Ibid, 210.
[10] Barclay, ACTS, 64.
[11] Peterson, 277.
No comments:
Post a Comment