Luke does not need to explain to his primary audience, the man called Theophilus, who or what the “Hellenists” were. It was apparently common knowledge. But for us today some explanation is needed. The best translation is neither NRSV & ESV’s “Hellenists” ( a term which many ordinary churchgoers are unfamiliar with), nor KJV & NIV’s “Grecian Jews” (which suggests a hair formula!), but “Greek-speaking Jews” (so the NET,and the Modern Hebrew translation הַיְּהוּדִים דּוֹבְרֵי הַיְּוָנִית ) or “those who spoke Greek” (REB, NLT).
Greek language and culture penetrated the Near East in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. One can read of its penetration even of Israelite society in the Books of the Maccabees. Greek became a kind of international language of culture and commerce from that time on, so much so that many Jews living outside of Israel (and even some inside) felt more comfortable reading their own scriptures in Greek than in Hebrew. As early as the days of Ezra we read that Jews returning from exile in Babylonia had forgotten Hebrew and needed impromptu translation of the sacred scriptures into Aramaic, the language they brought back to Israel with them (Neh 8:8).
“Targums gradually came into being as the synagogue evolved. After the Babylonian Exile, Aramaic came to predominate over Hebrew as the language of the Jews; in consequence it became customary for the reading of the Hebrew scriptures to be followed by an oral rendering into Aramaic for the benefit of the worshipers. Perhaps cf. Ne. 8:8. No doubt such renderings were free and spontaneous at first, but they became more and more fixed and ‘traditional’ as time passed” (IVP-NBD “Targums: I. Historical Survey").But by the time of Jesus Aramaic was one of two languages used in the marketplace: the other was Greek.
Hengel (Between Jesus and Paul, 8) makes the point that, since outside of Jerusalem Greek speakers would have predominated in all major urban centers of the East Mediterranean, the very term Ἑλληνισται hellenistai would only find use in Jerusalem, where Greek speakers were in the minority. Elsewhere the distinction would only be ethnic: Ιουδαιοι Ioudaioi “Jews” and Ἑλληνες Hellenistai “Greeks”. He also is right (pp. 10-11) that, while missionary apostles like Peter whose first language was Aramaic, if they were to travel anywhere outside of Palestine, had to learn Greek (hence Peter’s two letters in Greek). On the other hand Jews born in the Diaspora and spoke Greek as a first language might very well not take the trouble to learn Aramaic. Saul-Paul was an exception. Even the learned Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, who visited Jerusalem on pilgrimage and wrote learned treatises on Moses and the law, never learned Hebrew or Aramaic!
In liturgy and worship native Palestinian Jews preferred Hebrew and Aramaic, while Jews born in the Diaspora, even after moving back to live in Jerusalem, preferred to use the Greek translation of the scriptures. This latter group is called “Hellenists”, not so much because they held to Greek views of the world like the Hellenized Jews whom the Hasmonean rulers of Judea drove out as apostates, but because they preferred the Greek translation of Scripture.
Greek-speaking Jews in the early Jesus community felt that they were being given unequal treatment: overlooked in the distribution to their widows. Their complaint threatened to split the community in Jerusalem. To rectify the situation Peter and the other apostles appointed Greek-speaking members to the responsibility of allocating charitable resources to widows. One of the Seven men chosen was a man named Stephen. That the move succeeded is highlighted by Luke’s deliberate use of the phrase “the whole community” (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν, vv. 2 and 5).
Stephen’s speech and the reaction of those opposed to Jesus’ Messiahship shows, according to the way Luke presents it, a kind of “hinge”: a crucial turning point in the relationship of those within Israel who believed in Jesus and those who did not. This was a central event in what James Dunn refers to in his book title The Parting of the Ways. A good short summary is in the IVP-NBC.
But although Luke may have considered this event crucial in changing the relationship between Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not, he clearly highlights it for another reason: it was the occasion for the radicalizing of Saul of Tarsus which led to both his leading the persecution of the young church and his dramatic conversion and missionary life as a Christian.
Until this point, according to the narrative in Acts, the main persecution of the early Jesus believers came from the Sadducees and high priests, not from the Pharisees. In fact, it was the Pharisee Gamaliel who counseled leniency toward them (Acts 5:34). Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee (Phil 3:5), educated under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Yet he and his fellow "Hellenists" in the Jerusalem synagogues took offense at Stephen's speeches and debates and hauled him before the Council to accuse him of blasphemy on trumped up charges. And after Stephen’s final speech and murder recorded in Acts 7, Saul became the leader of a violent and determined attempt to suppress the Jesus movement (Acts 8:2; 22:2-5; Gal 1:13-17).
1 The friction began “when the disciples were increasing in number”. “Cancik is right that a principal theme of Acts is the steady growth of the Jesus movement. It emphasizes this point at Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 6:1, 7; 9:31; 16:5. Yet throughout Acts one gets the sense that the descriptions of growth are not offered simply as a narrative growth chart; these descriptions rather prove that God is with those who follow Jesus." (Reasoner, Theme of Acts, 640).
Here for the first time in Acts, Luke uses the term μαθηταὶ mathetai “disciples” (= Hebr תלמידם talmidim) for the believers in Jesus. He uses it 28 times in all in the book and always without any genitive (“of Jesus”, “of Paul”) accompanying it.
2 The early Jerusalem community is shown to be headed by the Twelve (including now Matthias in Judas’ place), who devote their time to public preaching and teaching (τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ "the Word of God" vv. 2 and 4) and to prayer (v. 4). Luke doesn’t specify whether the “prayer” — note the how he uses the singular here ("prayer" as an activity), versus the plural ταῖς προσευχαῖς tais proseukhais "the prayers" for the set times of group prayer in Acts 2:42 — was private (Acts 10:4, 31) or group prayer (for the latter see Acts 1:14; 12:5). The Twelve provided leadership, but decisions regarding the physical welfare of the community are made by vote of the whole.
5 The list of names shows that the “Hellenists” (Greek-speaking Jews) all bore Greek names, and the list is in the order of rank (so Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, 6). The names Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Timon and Parmenan are thoroughly Greek, but are not attested elsewhere among Jewish names according to Tal Ilan's Lexicon of Jewish Names (2002). Among those that are attested as Jewish outside of NT are Nicanor and Nicolaus. The last-named is said to be a Gentile proselyte to Judaism. It should be borne in mind that many thoroughly Hebraic Pharisees (e.g., Nicodemus) bore good Greek names.
7 Luke has no topical or tendentious motive for singling out the priests joining the community at this point; ergo it must rest on a reliable historical source. Why he does so is unclear.
With. Acts 251 stresses that these priests probably were not the leading priests who were wealthy and controlled the temple, but the rural poor ones who had no vested interest in opposing the young Jesus movement. Similarly, Steve Mason (in Book of Acts: Palestinian Setting 124) connects such priests with Luke’s positive picture of Zechariah, the priest and father of John the Baptist.
On the other hand, Blue (in WG 479f) suggests that these priests may have been of the wealthier type (his word is “benefactors”) living on the Western Hill, where their large homes could have served to accommodate the large numbers of Jesus believers meeting together. Perhaps — we just don’t know.
Alford, NT for Eng Readers, 687 notes that this was “the culminating point of the popularity of the church in Jerusalem”.
8-10 Stephen’s ministry described. Stephen’s ministry and witness had as its source the “grace” and “power” (χαρις και δυναμις kharis kai dynamis) of the Holy Spirit. It showed itself in two forms: “wonders and signs” (i.e., miraculous healings and exorcisms), and debating in the synagogues. We like to think today in Christian circles that nothing is ever gained by argumentation. Perhaps in the sense of 2Tim. 2:24 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient”. But certainly not in the sense of clearly reasoned persuasion. The texts says that Stephen’s arguments were unanswerable (v. 10). Notice too that the NIV reads “or the Spirit by whom he spoke”, which is to be preferred to the ESV reading “Spirit with which he was speaking”. The reference is to the Holy Spirit, who is a Person. Alford rightly notes that the “grace” that Stephen was full of was not “favor with the people”, but “divine grace”.
The debates were held in the Synagogue of the Freedmen, a religious meeting place for Jews from the Diaspora, which included both North Africans of the Hellenist variety (especially Alexandria) and Asia Minor (Cilicia) where Saul/Paul (a Pharisee) was from. According to Alford 688, there were 460-480 synagogues in Jerusalem at that time, and many must have housed Diaspora Jews.
When Stephen’s opponents could not prevail by argument, they turned to false charges against him. This is a tactic often used today. When one cannot answer the logic of an opponent, charges are brought against him for offensive speech — even if it is true speech! It is all too easy to hide behind the charge that the other person is using “hate language”!
The charge against Stephen was that he blasphemed Moses and God by claiming that the law and the temple were not permanent in God’s plan. The witnesses claimed he said that Jesus would destroy the temple and change the customs of Moses. Just what exactly Stephen did say we can only surmise. The irony is that it was the Romans who destroyed the temple in the course of suppressing a local Jewish rebellion, and that without the temple the Jewish rabbis themselves changed many of the customs of Moses, because they required a functioning Jerusalem temple in order to be performed!
Seen from today’s vantage point there seems nothing unusual about such a statement. But consider that in Acts 1-5 there is nothing in the preaching or behavior of the Twelve apostles to suggest that the temple would not continue to be central in their religious life or that the law of Moses would have to be changed. To be sure, Stephen’s words built upon certain aspects of Jesus’ own teachings. Jesus had emphatically stated that no "jot of tittle" of the law would disappear until all had been fulfilled. Yet Jesus did not interpret the law in the same way as other rabbis of his day, and doubtless this was the attitude of the earliest Jerusalem believers.
That Church continued to be loyal Jews, but Jews who believed in a crucified, resurrected and glorified Messiah Jesus, who offered repentance and forgiveness of sins to his people.
15 This remarkable statement anticipates the defense speech which is to come. Those "sitting" would be the examiners in the courtroom. As they look at the defendant, they see a thoroughly composed and unintimidated figure (“angel of God”), confident of the truth of which he will now speak. ESV cross-reference rightly includes Judg 13:6.
With. Acts 252 notes that the three trials or confrontations between the Jerusalem authorities and the Christians show a steady escalation: warnings, then floggings, and finally the murder of a Christian leader. Since the Romans had by no means ceded the right to capital punishment without prior consultation (not mentioned here), this cannot have been legal by any stretch of the imagination. The murder of Stephen could hardly have resulted in anything less than it did: the decisive breach with the Jerusalem authorities. Jesus-believing Jews continued to frequent the temple and obey the law of Moses (cf. Paul in the latter chapters of Acts), but the die was cast for the parting of the ways.
Although the substance of Stephen’s speech occupies the next chapter, it should be briefly noted here that Stephen does not bother to address the false and trumped up charges. He is not concerned to save his own life, but to set forth the truth. Hill (Hellenists & Hebrews 53) rightly remarks: “his is not a plea of innocence, but a plea for veritas [truth]”.
An analysis of Stephen’s speech will show that the charges were totally false: in this final speech Stephen has sharp criticism for the Jewish authorities who crucified Jesus and were even now opposing the gospel preached by his followers, but not specifically against temple or law.
No comments:
Post a Comment