[Index] [Previous] [Next]
2.4.4 - A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
Primitive Jewish Christianity
The Conflict with Judaism - Beginning of Persecution
The closing sentences of Stephen’s speech were not calculated to conciliate his hearers. His bold characterization of his accusers and judges as stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, his bitter denunciation of them for resisting the Spirit of God, and for breaking his laws, and his stinging arraignment of them as betrayers and murderers of the righteous one whom God had sent, and whom the prophets had foretold, must have enraged them beyond measure, and we are not surprised to learn that they "gnashed on him with their teeth."
But there was nothing in his address to substantiate the charge of blasphemy brought against him, and to justify his condemnation. That justification, however, he supplied in the work which he is reported to have uttered in vs. 56 ("Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God"), and the result was, as might have been expected, his conviction and execution.
Blasphemy, according to Jewish law, whether against Jehovah or against his law, was punishable by death [Lev. 24:6; Deut. 13: 6-10], and as Stephen was formally accused and brought to trial before the Sanhedrim, it is probable that he was formally condemned by that body, and that his death was not the result of a mere tumult, as the account of Luke might seem to imply.
This probability is strengthened by the fact that his death was by the legal mode prescribed for the crime of blasphemy, and that the stoning was done bot by the crowd in general, but by Stephen’s accusers in the orderly Jewish way. [Acts 7:58, cf. Deut. 17:7]
The Jews, it is true, did not possess, under the Roman procurators, the right to inflict capital punishment, but whether in the present instance the condemnation was confirmed by the Roman authorities or whether the execution took place illegally without Roman sanction, as happened later in the case of James [see below: The Developing Church - James and the Church of Jerusalem] we are not informed. Either supposition is credible; for during the closing years of his official career in Judea, Pilate was in such bad odor with the Jews, and had so such to do to retain his position, that he may well have refrained from calling them to account for their illegal action in this particular case.
But it is more probable that the Sanhedrim secured at least some kind of sanction from the authorities before proceeding to the execution, for it is difficult otherwise to explain the persecution which they immediately instituted against the Christians, and the failure of the latter to defend themselves against their persecutors by complaining of their violation of Roman law.
The execution of Stephen, according to the author of the Acts, was the signal for the outbreak of a general attack upon the disciples. Such at attack was entirely natural under the circumstances. There is no reason to suppose that the teachings and practices of Stephen differed in any way from those of his fellow-Christians and that his arrest was due to the fact that he was more radical than they.
It is probable that the hostility of the stricter Hellenistic Jews fell first upon him simply because he had first drawn their attention to the new faith. The Hellenists in general very likely knew little about Christianity, -- an obscure movement which had arisen in Galilee, and had excited little public attention in Jerusalem, -- until it began to spread widely among their own number, and to secure the adherence of men of influence and repute, such as Stephen undoubtedly was.
In the discussions which naturally ensued, and which were perhaps carried on in the synagogues, they may have learned for the first time of the startling ominous prophecies of Jesus. That many of them should take alarm at the consequences that seemed to be involved in such teachings was inevitable. Their hostility, once aroused, would fall not upon Stephen alone, but upon all that professed the new faith. The attack upon him would be but the beginning of a general attack upon the whole sect.
Stephen was arrested at the instance of his fellow-Hellenists and brought before the Sanhedrim, not as a disturber of the public peace, as Peter and John had bee, but as an enemy of God and of his law, and though his address did not substantiate the charge, it was not calculated to quiet the suspicions aroused against him and his fellows; and when he gave public utterance finally to a distinctly blasphemous statement, it must have become clear to all that heard him, that belief in the Messiahship of the revolutionary teacher Jesus, who had himself been condemned for blasphemy, even though it might not yet have led his followers in general into any overt breaches of the law,, was unsettling an anarchical in its effects.
That the religious leaders, who were concerned, above all, in the strict maintenance of ancestral law and custom, should take alarm and determine to crush out this growing heresy, which had at first appeared so harmless and insignificant, was inevitable.
The trouble begun by the attack upon Stephen brought Christianity for the first time into distinct and open conflict with Judaism. Hitherto the disciples had been Jews, and nothing more; now they were denounced by their brethren as heretics, and thus their independent existence was clearly recognized.
Though they were still as strict and conscientious as ever in their observance of the law, they now began to be looked upon in Jerusalem as a heretical sect, and the first step was thus taken toward their ultimate separation from the national body corporate.
For some time they seem to have been the objects of bitter and unrelenting hostility on the part of the religious leaders of the people, and their position in Jerusalem was exceedingly uncomfortable and dangerous, so that they found it necessary either to go into retirement or to leave the city altogether. [The notion that the apostles stood by Jerusalem after the flight of all their brethren, rests upon a misapprehension as to their position and functions, which is characteristic of the author of the Acts as well as of the age in which he lived.]
How long the persecution continued we do not know. Three years after the death of Stephen, Peter and James, the brother of the Lord, were in the city, as we learn from Gal. 1:18 sq., and their presence implies the presence of other Christians as well; though whether they were obliged still to conceal themselves from the eyes of the authorities, we cannot say. But whatever the position of the disciples of Jerusalem at the time, they were sufficiently numerous and well known a few years later to afford Herod Agrippa I. an opportunity, which he thought it worth his while to improve, of vindicating his devotion to the Jewish law, and of currying favor with the Pharisaic party, by execution of the leaders of the Christians and by imprisoning another. [James the son of Zebedee was executed, and Peter imprisoned (Acts 12)]
The fact that this attack was made the subject of special record in Luke’s sources goes to show that it was exceptional, and that it formed a contrast to the general situation during this period. In fact, it is altogether probable that in the years immediately preceding Herod’s accession, and during the greater part of his reign, the Christians were left unmolested by the authorities, and that after his death they enjoyed peace under the government of the Roman procurators, and were permitted to grow without serious interference until the troublous days that ushered in the Jewish war.
Used by permission of the publisher.
[Index] [Previous] [Next]