Acts of the Apostles Online Commentary (29)

This is the twenty-ninth entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This entry deals with Peter’s missionary travels to Lydda and Joppa and his powerful encounter with Tabitha.

For previous entries, please now go to the Complete Acts of the Apostle Commentary, where you can find links to each of the entries updated after each new blog post.

3. Contents:

E) Preparation for the Gentile Mission: the Conversions of Paul and Cornelius (9:1-12:25): Peter’s initial missionary activities outside of Jerusalem (9:32-43):

³² Now as Peter went here and there among all the believers, he came down also to the saints living in Lydda. ³³ There he found a man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden for eight years, for he was paralyzed. ³⁴ Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!” And immediately he got up. ³⁵ And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.³⁶ Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas.  She was devoted to good works and acts of charity. ³⁷ At that time she became ill and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in a room upstairs. ³⁸ Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, who heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, “Please come to us without delay.” ³⁹ So Peter got up and went with them; and when he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs. All the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing tunics and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was with them. ⁴⁰ Peter put all of them outside, and then he knelt down and prayed. He turned to the body and said, “Tabitha, get up.” Then she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up. ⁴¹ He gave her his hand and helped her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he showed her to be alive. ⁴² This became known throughout Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. ⁴³ Meanwhile he stayed in Joppa for some time with a certain Simon, a tanner. (NRSV)

“Rise up” (anastêthi), or “get up” in the NRSV translation, is said by Peter to both of the parties healed in this narrative, which links these two miracle stories with the power of the resurrection of Jesus. In a figurative sense we could also say it refers to Peter getting up and leaving Jerusalem to begin his activity as a missionary or something like a circuit rider, travelling from town to town, visiting disciples of Jesus. We do not learn how these people became disciples, we simply know that believers are present. Were they converted due to Jesus’ own ministry? To other missionary travels of the apostles? Or to the preaching of disciples other than the apostles?

What we learn is simply that the movement of the Gospel has continued from Jerusalem, without any clues as to how it arrived, and “as Peter went here and there among all the believers, he came down also to the saints living in Lydda” (Acts 9:32). Luke describes the general movement of Peter from “here and there,” which is intended to suggest the common reality of Christian disciples throughout the region however their communities were formed. Lydda itself, named by Luke, is the OT Lod (1 Chron 8:12; 1 Macc 11:34), a city around twenty-five miles NW of Jerusalem.

When Peter arrived in Lydda, “he found a man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden for eight years, for he was paralyzed” (Acts 9:33). Luke gives us details in this account, the city, the personal name, the ailment, and the amount of time Aeneas has been stricken, details which add a degree of verisimilitude to the story.  Peter himself gets right down to business saying, “’Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!’ And immediately he got up” (Acts 9:34).

Aeneas was paralyzed, which connects this healing miracle to Luke 5:17-26. Another detail is even more significant for the command upon his healing to make his bed is based upon Luke 5:24. Luke Timothy Johnson notes that the Greek of this phrase, strosôn seautô, is difficult since it means “spread/strew things for yourself,” but that in context it clearly means he can get up and do things for himself, in this case, he can make his bed (Johnson, Acts, 177). The truth of the healing is supported by the command to do things only someone who can walk and move about is capable of doing.

As a result of this healing “all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord” (Acts 9:35). The healing leads to conversion, for signs and wonders in Acts, miracles that is, are the means by which people are convinced of the power of the Gospel. Note that it is the Christus praesens that heals Aeneas here not Peter (Dillon, NJBC, 745): “Jesus Christ heals you.” But this power leads to belief in Christ.

A further geographical note is added by Luke when he mentions that not only the people of Lydda, but also of “the” Sharon – a definite article is present in the Greek – turned to the Lord. The Sharon is not a city or town, but a district, the Plain of Sharon (Isaiah 33:9), located between Caesarea and Joppa. This detail connects us to the next healing. Joppa the famous port city (2 Chron 2:16), which today is called Jaffa, is twelve miles farther NW from Lydda.

“Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas.  She was devoted to good works and acts of charity” (Acts 9:36). Tabitha is described as a mathêtria, a female disciple, the only time in the NT this form of the word is used (Johnson, Acts, 177). Tabitha means “gazelle” in Aramaic and T. E. Page says that “Dorcas” is actually an adjective which means “the creature with the beautiful look” or “beautiful eyes” (Page, Acts, 142). But Johnson says Dorcas is simply Greek for gazelle and is used to translate the Hebrew gazelle (zebi/zebiah) in the LXX in Deut 12:15, 2 Sam 2:18, and in Song of Songs 2:9 and 8:14 to define the beloved (Johnson, Acts, 177). The translation of the name to Dorcas in this account shows that this is an early Jewish-Christian story passed on by (or to) Hellenized Christians (Dillon, NJBC, 745). Once again, though, we have the important personal detail of the name.

More than that, Tabitha was noted for “good works and acts of charity,” which could include almsgiving among her other activities (Johnson, Acts, 177). As with Lydda, though, we do not know how the Gospel spread to Joppa or who spread it and how the assemblies met and gathered there. We get some tantalizing hints in this story, which I will discuss below, but nothing more.

For instance, Tabitha “became ill and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in a room upstairs” (Acts 9:37). Who are “they”? Family? Other disciples? Are they in Tabitha’s home? A house church which she runs, perhaps, given her good works and acts of charity? They wash her body in preparation for burial, but it is odd that Luke omits the anointing of the body which is essential for Jewish burial. Is it a clue that she will not be buried, or simply an omission of a detail by someone who was not Jewish?

Luke then tells us that “since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, who heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, ‘Please come to us without delay’” (Acts 9:38). We learn here that the “they” who prepared Tabitha’s body must be disciples of Jesus, since they are noted as disciples in this verse. In addition, they know of and send for Peter, so they are clearly connected to other disciples including the apostles. So, another tantalizing hint is given: is it possible that Tabitha lived in community with the people who washed her body, as did the disciples in Jerusalem?

Not only do they send emissaries to Peter, but we find that Peter responds positively to the emissaries: “Peter got up and went with them; and when he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs. All the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing tunics and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was with them” (Acts 9:39).  This prepares us for the next narrative when Peter will respond to requests from other messengers to go and visit Cornelius.

This verse tells us more about Tabitha. There are a group of widows. Indeed, in this passage it seems as if the disciples specifically are widows, since that is how the group is described, but we do not know if they comprise the whole group of disciples in Joppa. We must suspect they are not all women since in Acts 9:38 two men were sent as messengers to Peter. As to the widows themselves, is Tabitha part of the group, a widow herself? Or are the widows the recipients of her charity (Johnson, Acts, 178)?

The widows are “showing” the clothing Tabitha made, but Page says it is more than “showing.” He says the verb epideiknymenai indicates more a sense of displaying or exhibiting and “conveys the idea of ‘showing with pride,’ ‘satisfaction’” (Page, Acts, 142). What Tabitha has made, chitonas kai himatia, are first the undergarments and second the flowing outer garments which comprised the basic wardrobe (Page, Acts, 142). After this description of the clothes is hosa, a relative adjective, which does not emerge in the English translation clearly, but describes the clothes with the sense of “as great as, as far as, how much, how many,” which indicates that Tabitha had made many clothes.

The next section is clearly modeled on Jesus’ healing of Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5 and in Luke 7:11-16 (Dillon, NJBC, 745; Page, Acts, 142; Johnson, Acts, 178). “Peter put all of them outside, and then he knelt down and prayed. He turned to the body and said, ‘Tabitha, get up.’ Then she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up” (Acts 9:40).  The story has OT resurrection story models also (see 1 Kings 17:17-24 and 2 Kings 4:32-37) (Dillon, NJBC, 745), but clearly the precedent here is Jesus’ raising up of those who have died.

For example, in Mark 5:40, Jesus asks all the people present to leave, ekbalôn pantas; here in Acts Peter says, ekbalôn exô pantas. In addition, apart from the linguistic connection, there are the messengers bringing the healer, the weeping of the friends, the call by the healer to rise up, and the taking of the healed by the hand. I think it is even possible that the phrasing is modeled on Jesus’ healing of Jairus’ daughter in Mark. In Aramaic, Jesus says, “Talitha koum” (Mark 5:41; Dillon, NJBC, 745). Peter says, “Tabitha get up;” if also in Aramaic, it would be “Tabitha koum.” An interesting – perhaps intended – similarity.

There is one interesting discrepancy with the first miracle of Aeneas, however, and the pattern in Acts generally, and that is that Christ’s name is not invoked in the healing. Peter simply says, “Tabitha get up.” Why is this the case? Luke would not want to attribute the power to Peter himself, but perhaps it is to show the connection to Jesus’ own healing of Jairus’ daughter linguistically in terms of the simple command.

When Tabitha has been brought back to life, Peter “gave her his hand and helped her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he showed her to be alive” (Acts 9:41).  The Greek for “showed her to be alive” (parestêsen heauton zônta) is virtually identical to Acts 1:3 and the description of Jesus, which indicates that this same power is working through Peter and active in Tabitha (Johnson, Acts, 178). We also learn in this verse that in the community there are definitely both men and women, since we have the widows once again mentioned, but also the hagious, masculine for “holy ones.” Do they all live together in community as did the disciples in Jerusalem? It is intriguing to think that Tabitha may have been the owner of the house whose charity and good works consisted of supporting the community, but there is too much supposition in this proposal to be certain.

Tabitha’s rising up from the dead “became known throughout Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. Meanwhile he stayed in Joppa for some time with a certain Simon, a tanner” (Acts 9:42-43). This is obviously an even more significant miracle than the previous one for Peter raises Tabitha up from the dead.  Of course the result of this event was the spread of the Gospel message, as with the previous miracle. The note that many believed in the Lord does indicate, even though Luke does not mention that Peter’s miracle was done in Jesus’ name, that these activities were done through Jesus’ power and led to belief in the Lord.

Peter stayed with Simon the tanner (byrsei) for “some time” (hikanas). Hikanas is a common word in Acts for time, number, size; it indicates something which does not fall short or is sufficient or adequate for what is needed. It is relative in meaning depending on the situation, thing, or event (Page, Acts, 143). It means that Peter spent as much time as was needed by the people of Joppa, but does not give us a solid number. Again, however, the name and occupation of Simon the tanner give authenticity to the story (Johnson, Acts, 178). The fact that byrsei, tanner, was held to be an unclean profession by the Jews is an interesting detail (m. Ket. 7:10; Page, Acts, 143). It sets us up in some ways for Peter to go to see a Gentile and to be among many potentially unclean people. In Luke’s schema it is important that Peter inaugurates the world mission to the Gentiles not Paul (Dillon, NJBC, 745). And the two miracles performed by Peter set us up for his encounter with Cornelius.

Next entry, Cornelius and Peter.

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

This entry is cross-posted at AmericaMagazine - The Good Word

Acts of the Apostles Online Commentary (28)

This is the twenty-eighth entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This entry deals with Saul’s initial activities as a disciple of Jesus in Damascus, Jerusalem, and Tarsus. 

For previous entries, please now go to the Complete Acts of the Apostle Commentary, where you can find links to each of the entries updated after each new blog post.

3. Contents:

E) Preparation for the Gentile Mission: the Conversions of Paul and Cornelius (9:1-12:25): Saul’s initial activities as a disciple of Jesus (9:23-31):

23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. 30 When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. 31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers. (NRSV)

Prior to reading this entry it would be wise to check out Galatians 1-2 and 2 Corinthians 11, passages which are correlated to the historical narrative described in this section of Acts, in order to gain proper context on the events described here. At least, you should have a Bible (or Biblegateway.com) at the ready to examine these passages as you read through this entry. I should also mention that although the name given in Acts is still Saul, I will also refer to him as Paul here because of the use of Paul’s letters. 

Because we have Pauline accounts, Gal 1:11-24 and 2 Cor 11:32-33, which are clearly related to the historical events outlined in this passage, it is important to compare them generally before a specific study of Acts 9:23-31. Luke Timothy Johnson says the Pauline passages give substantial support to Luke’s basic historicity (Johnson, Acts, 173), but there are a number of differences. 

The following lists below, based on lists found in Luke Timothy Johnson’s work, offer the historical similarities and differences between this section of Acts and Paul’s letters (Johnson, Acts, 173-74). These lists are helpful for seeing what Johnson means when he speaks of “basic historicity.”

These are the agreements in historical reconstruction between Luke and Paul, followed by the relevant passages:

i.                     Paul’s  experience of the risen Lord took place in or near Damascus (Acts 9:1-9; Gal 1:17);

ii.                   Paul had a ministry after his call, either in Damascus (Acts 9:20-25)  or in Arabia and then Damascus (Gal 1:17);

iii.                  Pauls’ life was threatened in Damascus  and he escaped in a basket lowered down through the city wall (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor 11:32-33);

iv.                 Paul visited the Jerusalem Church early in his ministry (Acts 9:26; Gal 1:21);

v.                   Paul met with some apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27; Gal 1:19);

vi.                 Barnabas was Paul’s companion for a meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27; Gal 2:1);

vii.                After his first trip to Jerusalem Paul went home to Cilicia (Tarsus is located in Cilicia) as a missionary (Acts 9:30; Gal 1:21).

The following are the disagreements in historical reconstruction between Luke and Paul: 

i.                     Paul gives a period of three years between his ministry in Arabia and Damascus and his first trip to Jerusalem, but Acts assumes a shorter period (Gal 1:17-18;  Acts 9:23);

ii.                   Paul says he was opposed by an ethnarch of King Aretas, but Luke says it was a Jewish plot (2 Cor 11:32; Acts 9:23-24);

iii.                  Paul says he only saw Cephas and James on his first visit, whereas Luke says he saw “the apostles” (Gal 1:19-20; Acts 9:27);

iv.                 Paul does not give time or space for a ministry in Jerusalem on his first visit as a disciple of Jesus, only that he stayed with Cephas for “fifteen days,” but Luke stresses Paul’s evangelization and gives it as the reason he was forced to leave Jerusalem  (Gal 1:18 ; Acts 9:28-29);

v.                   Paul has Barnabas as his travel companion not on the first visit, which Luke mentions as a key factor in Paul’s stay, but much later (“then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me”) (Acts 9:27; Gal 2:1).  

Johnson does not want to focus too much on the differences, allowing each author “his sincerity,” but history is not just a matter of sincerity but careful evaluation and reconstruction. On the other hand, if he means by “sincerity” that each author attempted to tell the historical truth, as he knew and understood the facts and data, naturally this is granted. But theology impinges on how historical reconstruction takes place and Luke, who was not present for the events he describes, is especially interested in “showing how the Gospel moved out into the Gentile world in continuity with the restored people of God in Jerusalem” (Johnson, Acts, 174).  

Luke’s goal of tracking the movement of the Gospel into the Gentile world makes better sense of many of the differences with Paul’s narratives, as Luke strives to present greater continuity and less friction and personal separation among the earliest Christians. My basic tendency (or bias) where Luke and Paul disagree on incidents in Paul’s life is to trust Paul on the details in his own life, but this cannot be a hard and fast historical rule either. People have a way of forgetting events, exaggerating them, or confusing people and things, even in their own experience. Historical veracity must be tested in each case.

The account begins with “the Jews” plotting to kill Saul, “but their plot became known to Saul” (Acts 9:23-24). In some ways, these first verses reveal the most profound difference with Paul’s letters. In 2 Corinthians 11: 32 Paul attributes his trouble in Damascus to an ethnarch of the Nabatean King Aretas not the Jews (Gary Gilbert, JANT, 217; Johnson, Acts, 171-2). On this question, Paul is more trustworthy, which is not to say that some Jews were not opposed to Paul and the early Christians, but that Paul probably would not have been reticent to note who his persecutors were. After all, in 2 Corinthians 11:24 Paul states that he received from the Jews on five occasions the forty lashes minus one; Paul would not shy away from naming the source of the plot if it were Jewish. Paul was also a persecutor of the Church so he would have no qualms mentioning other Jewish persecutors of the Church. Here I trust that Paul knew the source of the plot better than Luke. 

The word for plot (epiboulê) might also be translated as “scheme.” I am not certain which word is better in this instance. Plot seems to indicate a more formal plan, while scheme suggests an idea, perhaps not thought through entirely. On the other hand, since Luke says “they were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him” (Acts 9:24), that might suggest a formal plan. Johnson notes that the verb paratêreô, “keeping watch,” used in this verse is also found in Luke’s Gospel (6:7, 14:1, 20:20) for hostile attention directed at Jesus (Johnson, Acts, 171), which also suggests, at least for Luke, a well-considered plot. We are not actually given a concrete reason for this plot, but it must be due to Saul’s evangelizing (Acts 9:22). 

Saul escapes this threat when “his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket” (Acts 9:25). 2 Corinthians 11:33, “but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his {King Aretas’} hands, is “almost identical” (Johnson, Acts, 172) to Luke’s description. Clearly, this refers to the same event that Paul describes. Johnson says that the use of “his disciples” to describe those who aided Saul in escaping is odd, since it is Jesus who generally is described as having disciples and the word has a formal sense, as we will see in the following verse, for Christian believers (Johnson, Acts, 172). Since Paul does not use a description similar to this in his own accounting of the daring rescue, it must just be an anomaly in Acts.

After Saul escaped Damascus and “had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26). This fear of Saul is quite rational if only a short time has passed since Paul became a believer in Jesus, as we see in Acts, but Paul himself reports in Galatians 1:17-18 that he went to Arabia first and not to Jerusalem for three years after his conversion (Gary Gilbert, JANT, 218). After three years it seems that Paul would have been well known to the Jerusalem Church. Here Luke’s account might be closer to the historical reality. Could Paul have forgotten an earlier visit or conflated two visits? Think back to two visits to a major or favorite city of yours each at least fifteen years ago and separated by three years. It might be possible to forget what took place on which visit precisely, even if the events were momentous. 

In Acts, Barnabas acts as Saul’s protector. “Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus” (Acts 9:27). Barnabas acts as a mediator between Paul and the apostles, living up to his name says Johnson as “son of consolation” (Acts 4:36; Johnson, Acts, 172), but it also points to a major difference with Paul’s account in Galatians. 

“The incident provides a classic case of disagreement with Paul’s account in Gal. 1:17-19. Paul takes an oath in support of his version that after his call he did not go up to Jerusalem until three years had passed, and then spoke only to Cephas, seeing ‘none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.’” (Johnson, Acts, 172)

Not only does Barnabas seem to introduce Saul to all the apostles, but also Barnabas himself does not appear in Galatians with Paul until fourteen years after these supposed events (Galatians 2:1), yet in Acts it is Barnabas who is the major player on Saul’s behalf. The Greek verb epilabomenos means that Barnabas “took hold of” or “took possession of” or “took him by the hand.” We might think in English of Barnabas “taking charge of” Saul or even “vouching for him.” This is not minor activity on Barnabas’s part. Barnabas and Paul will become friends and co-workers and fellow missionaries according to Acts 12:25, 13:2-50, 14:12-20, 15:2-39, and Barnabas does appear in Paul’s letters, but Acts allows for the beginning of this relationship at an earlier period in Paul’s Christian life and this seems historically more plausible.  

Saul’s arrival in Jerusalem has him “speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him” (Acts 9:28-29). There are a number of problems between Paul’s and account and that of Acts. Paul says in Galatians 1:22 that he was unknown by face to the churches in Judea, but this description of his preaching makes that very unlikely. Saul is said to have gone “in and out among them in Jerusalem” which suggests numerous interactions. On this account, he must have been known to the believers in Jerusalem. 

Another major question is the identification of the “Hellenists” in Acts 9:29. Both Gilbert and Johnson identify them with the Hellenists found in Acts 6:1-6 (Gary Gilbert, JANT, 218; Johnson, Acts, 172), but they are clearly not the same group. In Acts 6:1-6 we have Greek speaking Jews who are disciples of Jesus, while in Acts 9:29 we have Greek speaking Jews who are opposed to Christianity and are trying to kill Saul. The identical name of “Hellenists” is confusing, but they cannot be the same group.

We know, too, that Saul must have been known to the Christians in Jerusalem and Judea because Luke says that when they the other disciples of Jesus learned of another threat to his life “they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus” (Acts 9:30). The followers of Jesus have rallied around him. Another plot on Saul’s life and another escape! Saul was “brought down” (katêgagon), that is, taken to the sea coast and sent by boat to Tarsus. In Galatians 1:21 Paul says he travelled to the region of Syria and Cilicia, but we do not have to imagine that this was on land. 

According to Galatians, Paul next went to Jerusalem only after fourteen years (Galatians 2:1).

This short, but action packed scenario, ends with a typical Lukan summary: “meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers” (Acts 9:31). This summary statement, which Luke gives on regular occasions (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:12-16; 19:20), is intended to have the reader (or listener) take pause and see the work that God is doing in the Church, regardless of setbacks, threats, and dangers. Luke here uses the verb oikodomoumenê, which can literally refer to the building of a house, or to figurative building, such as growth of a person or a group, or spiritual and moral building and growth. The verb is used eleven times in Luke and throughout Paul’s letters (Page, Acts, 141). The most important point however? It is not just the Church in Judea that is being built, but the Church in Galilee and Samaria too (not to mention Damascus). 

Is Johnson correct when he speaks of the “basic historicity” found in the Acts account of Paul’s earliest ministry? I think he is; even with the differences and tensions, Saul’s basic missionary activity from the beginning is clear. He is on his way to being a force in the Church, not just someone people have heard of and feared, but someone who becomes the major missionary force for the new community.

Next entry, Peter goes to Lydda and Joppa and meets Tabitha.

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine - The Good Word