[Index] [Previous] [Next]
2.4.2 - A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
Primitive Jewish Christianity
The Conflict with Judaism - The First Arrests
The part played by Gamaliel in the course of action by the authorities, as report in Acts 5:34 sq., has given rise to much discussion. The whole account has been declared by many scholars (e.g. Baur, Zeller, and Overbeck) as entirely unhistorical, both because of the attitude which Gamaliel is represented as taking and of the anachronism in his reported speech. But there is no reason, in the nature of things, why the great Rabbi Gamaliel may not have counseled moderation in dealing with the disciples.
His attitude, as it appears in the passage in question, does not necessarily imply any secret leaning toward Christianity or any friendliness for the Christians. It is simply the attitude of a wise and cool-headed man who believes that control will accomplish the desired purpose better than repression. That there is nothing incredible in the report that Gamaliel, or any other member of the Sanhedrin, held such an attitude, is shown by the fact that the disciples were actually treated with just such moderation for a long time.
But the fact must be recognized that though the general statement as to Gamaliel’s position may be quite correct, the report of his speech cannot be regarded as entirely accurate.
Josephus (Ant. 20:5,1) gives an account of an insurgent leader named Theudas, who, in the reign of Claudius, a dozen years or more after the time to which Luke is referring, announced himself as a prophet and secured a great many followers, and was finally conquered and slain by the procurator Cuspius Fadus. Many scholars in the interest of Luke’s account have denied the identity of this man with the Theudas mentioned in Acts (i.e. by Wieseler: Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters, S. 138; Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1. P. 732; and many commentators on Acts), but the descriptions in the two cases agree so closely that it is very difficult to believe that they refer to different men, especially in view of the fact that the name Theudas was far from common. The accuracy of Josephus’ chronology at this point cannot be doubted, and it would seem therefore that the author of the Acts, unconscious of the anachronism involved, must have put into Gamaliel’s mouth words which he did not actually utter. (See Neander: Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel, 5te Auflage, S. 57; Wendt: l.c. S. 146; and Schurer: Geschichte des judischen Volkes, I.S. 473, where the literature is given with considerable fullness.)
The time at which the first arrests were made we do not know, but they must not be brought into any connection with the outbreak that occurred in connection with Stephen, for that had grounds of an entirely different character. We shall probably not go far astray, if we assume that the interference of the authorities, referred to in Acts 4 & 5, began in the earlier rather than in the latter part of the period that elapsed between Pentecost and the execution of Stephen, and that that interference actually accomplished the end sought, and that the disciples thenceforth refrained from creating public disturbances, and carried on their evangelistic work more quietly than they and been inclined to do at first. [In confirmation of this supposition it may be observed that the arrest of Stephen was not caused by the Sadducees, but by the religious zealots, and hence it would seem that the action of the disciples had ceased to incur the hostility of the civic authorities.]
The arrest of Stephen at the instigation of certain foreign Jews, who were exceedingly zealous for ancestral law and custom [Acts 6:9, sq.], is a fact of great significance and demands careful examination, all the more careful because it has been widely misinterpreted.
The accusations brought against Stephen doubtless had some basis in fact, but he is certainly misrepresented by the “false witnesses” whom Luke quotes in vs. 13, for had he “ceased not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law,” he would have incurred the disapprobation not of the unconverted Jews alone, but of his Christian brethren as well.
The rigor with which they observed the law not only in the beginning, but for years afterward, and the bitterness and persistency with which many of them later opposed the tendency to regard it as abrogated, or to neglect its observance, make it certain that, had Stephen done as he was said to have done by his accusers, even though he and not preached, as Paul later did, a Gentile Christianity, a serious and bitter conflict must have been precipitated.
But so far as our sources enable us to judge, Stephen continued to stand in unquestioned repute and to enjoy the universal esteem of his brethren.
It is not impossible that a freer tendency than that originally represented by Peter and his associates existed within the church of Jerusalem at this time, and that it made itself felt especially among the converts from the Hellenists. But the tendency can have been neither very marked nor very extreme, or it would certainly have split the infant church. It is more probable, under the circumstances, that opposition to Christianity on the part of the stricter spirits among the Hellenists of Jerusalem was aroused not by attacks made by the Christians upon the Jewish law, or by a manifest tendency among them to neglect its observance, but by such an emphasis upon the spiritual character of the future Messianic kingdom as led to a seeming neglect of its physical and political aspects, and appeared to many to threaten the permanent stability of Jewish law and custom.
It may well be that in his proclamation of the impending judgment and of the return of Jesus to establish the Messianic kingdom, Stephen, as well as others, repeated the prophecies of Christ in which the destruction of the temple and of the city was foretold, prophecies which might easily be interpreted as implying that the Jewish law had only relative and temporary validity.
But there is no sign that Stephen thus interpreted them, and there is no sign that he drew from them conclusions affecting in any way the binding character of the law, or thought of suggesting, or even countenancing, its neglect.
To say that Jesus the Messiah, as a judgment upon an unbelieving people, will destroy their temple and city, does not necessarily mean that he will change the customs that God has delivered unto them through Moses, and we may be sure that Stephen cannot have taught thus and retained the confidence of the church.
Used by permission of the publisher.
[Index] [Previous] [Next]