ST. PETER goes to LYDDA and JOPPA

St. Peter goes to Lydda and Joppa

The Passage: Acts 9:32-43

Structure:

a. 9:32, Travel of St. Peter

  b. 9:33-35, Healing of Aeneas, people turned to the Lord

    c. 9:36, she is occupied with good works and almsgiving

      d. 9:37a, she died, and was brough to the upper room. 

    c’. 9:38-39, showing the tunics and cloaks that Dorcas made

  b’. 9:40-42, Healing of Tabitha, people turned to the Lord  

a’. 9:43, Stay of St. Peter

Historical and geographical context:

Interesting fact, St. Peter undertakes his trip when Jerusalem congregation together with the churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria reached peace. Then the apostle decided to visit them all (v.31). [On singularity of this decision see below…]. Going around the land – again, visiting all – the author of Acts paid attention only to two accidents – in Lydda and Joppa.     

Lydda – modern Lod and Joppa – Jaffa in Israel. Lod is a city within the boundaries of the tribe of Benjamin. Interesting, it is not mentioned in a list of cities given to the tribe during the Conquest (Josh. 18:11-28). It is one of the dominant places for the returnees from the Exile (Ezra 2:33). Jaffa is technically a part of modern Tel-Aviv. Historically, it is believed that Joppa was built by one of the sons of Noan – Japheth (cp. Gen. 10:2-5). It is the city that prophet Jonah ran into for his attempted escape to Tarshish (Jonah 1:1-3).          

Theology:

Trip of St. Peter. Worthy to note that the apostle makes his trip singlehandedly. Lenski noted the work was so abundant that apostles had to spread themselves so thin – take the tours one by one (Lenski, Acts, p. 381-382). It does not sound convincing. The mission field of St. Paul is even widespread, yet he is always accompanied by other people (cp. 2 Tim. 4:11). Honestly, I don’t know what to make out that. Personal gain? Unlikely. Pride? He is not maintaining his fame. Being first among the even ones? Don’t know…     

Healing. St. Peter did not exercise his own healing abilities. He states: Jesus Christ heals you. Two things should be remembered here. First, Luke from the very beginning carries the idea that the Book of Acts is a continuation of the work of Jesus Christ. Second, the healing is similar to the healing in 3^rd chapter, where the apostle heals the lame in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.    

Aeneas and Dorcas’ healing and (her) resurrection – double stories. This is not the first parallel (or sandwich-type) story. Mark tells us (5:21-43) how Jesus goes to heal Jairus’ daughter. His attempt is intervened by a woman who suffered for 12 years of a blood discharge who is healed. Then the story returns to the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter. She is raised by Jesus’ command – Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41), while Dorcas is raised by St/ Peter’s command – Tabitha cumi (9:40). Note the similarity of beth and lamed in Hebrew/Aramean letters.    

Resurrection of Tabitha. First, a disciple is not an apostle or a minister. Tabitha is called a disciple. It does not mean that she should be “labeled” as a “worship leader” of their church. Second, her Aramaic name has a Hebrew parallel – Zibiah (2 Kings 12:1; 2 Chr. 24:1). Historical books mention Beersheba in both passages. Michael Kochman believes that it was given as a sign to gather control over all the land by Judean kings. If it is true, Tabitha’s death and resurrection consolidates and invites more believers into the fellowship of the saints.           

Other themes:

Burial customs – bringing a person to the upper room and having “criers” in the room for a period of time. Usually, in a warm climate people are buried fast (cp. John 11). Yet, Bible has a few stories of falling asleep “ascending to the upper room” (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37). The resemblance with these stories leads us to believe that the resurrection of Tabitha is done not for her sake but for the sake of the community. In the similar way it forces us to rethink the Upper Room dinner of Jesus and apostles – He did everything for their (and our) sake.

Luke uses an ambiguous phrase – for many days – to identify how long of St. Peter lived in Joppa (cp. St. Paul’s stay in Damascus, 9:19,23). IMHO, Luke wants to make an impression of a prolonged period of time of peace and tranquility for the Church.

Saul persecutes the Church

Saul persecutes the Church

The Passage: Acts 8:1-3

Structure:

a. 8:1a, SAUL approved the execution

  b. 8:1b, great persecution against the church,

    c. 8:1c, and they were all scattered, except apostles.

    c’. 8:2a, devout men buried Stephen 

  b’. 2, and made great lamentation

a’. 8:3, SAUL was ravaging the church 

Historical and geographical context:

Execution of the faithful Stephen was not enough. The nameless and faceless crowd began a GREAT persecution against the church in Jerusalem. This persecution triggered the movement of the disciples from the capital to Judea and Samaria (prior to this persecution faithful were in Jerusalem proper). As Jesus has told them, they became His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria (1:8). The only difference is they [probably] could’ve begun the outreach in a more peaceful context.  

Theology:

Role of Saul. The previous story [Stephen at the Council] identifies Saul as a young man (7:58). This translation can be misleading. The word here is not necessarily refers to an age (in our modern sense), but more to a status. Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon identifies a period of 24- to 40-year-old. Pairing this Greek word with the usage in Judges 16:26, we learn that this word should mean “someone under supervision authority” (cp. 1 Sam 2:17-18). That’s why his – Sauls’ approval meant a lot, but to engage in persecution of the church in other cities and town he had to be “commissioned” (cp. 9:1-2).         

Identification of “devout men”. The term is used in various places in NT (Lk. 2:25; Acts 2:5; 22:12). It should be distinguished from a similar term used to identify the Gentile God-fearers (10:2). Regardless of the identity of the target group that was persecuted (the whole church or Hellenistic part only), we know that the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem. Therefore, most likely, forming the core group of those who buried and lamented over the death of Stephen.     

Great lamentation over the buried Stephen. We do not know much about the burial rites and traditions of the I century Judaism. Yet, two things are apparent: there was a proper burial (to the ground or a tomb), and there was a lengthy process of lamentation. Current practice of lamenting for the loss of a loved one includes a year-long reading of KADDISH prayer. According to some historical sources (Mishnah: Sanhedrin VI:6) a lamentation over an executed person was forbidden. Apparently, “the devout men” held Stephen at such a high regard that their disapproval of the outburst resulted in his murdering led them to open resistance to the Council policies. There is another interpretation of this Rabbinical law. Knowing that Mishnah was composed in II-III centuries AD, it is possible that the restriction was a result of a lengthy lamentation followed the burial of Stephen. The High Council wanted to secure the ruling for the exclusion of Messianic believers from a regular mourning practices of Post-Second Temple Judaism.        

Future rapid growth. This passage raises an interesting question on the history of development of Christian/Messianic Jerusalem community: if everyone but apostles left, how come the church grew so fast? How do we know it grew fast – by St. Paul’s return from his third mission trip Jerusalem congregation consisted at least 20,000 members (cp. 21:20). Therefore, under a considerable pressure Apostles, preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments, were able to rebuild the Jerusalem messianic community to the point of hosting the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), and gaining tens of thousands new members.    

Other themes:

Stratification of the church. Seeing what Saul is doing to the church one should ask a question about the meaning of the church. It is possible to think that Jerusalem Messianic community owned real estate property (cp. 4:32-37). Yet, this is not what Saul goes after. He chaises the believers from house to house, disrupting and destroying families. This is an important example of the true meaning of the church – people in the context of their family and neighboring network. As later St. Peter will say: “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 2:4-5).

Ananias and Sapphira

Ananias and Sapphira  

The Passage: Acts 5:1-11

Structure: (almost) straight parallelism

a. 5:1-2, Lie of Ananias

  b. 5:3-4, Words of St. Peter

    c. 5:5a, fell down and breathed his last

      d. 5:5b, great fear came upon

        e. 5:6 burial of the husband 

a’. 5:7-8, Lie of Sapphira – dialogue with the apostle

  b’. 5:9, Words of St. Peter

    c’. 5:10a, fell down and breathed her last

        e’. 5:10b, wife’s burial

      d’. 5:11, great fear came upon the church    

 

Historical and geographical context:

In a sense this passage is an addition or an appendix to the previous “story”. As we saw, by the end of ch. 4 the church experienced great unity on confessional, liturgical, and sociological levels. But, after that achievement there always comes a challenge. We can call it “Garden paradigm”. Gen. 1 and 2 end on a high note. Then we have a challenge in 2:25-3:7, complete failure… Similar models are revealed in other parts of the Bible (Vineyard after the flood and a challenge of Noah’s authority by Ham; finalized kingdom of David and a challenge of Bathsheba; etc.) 

Theology:

God created Adam and his wife to be in unity – two be one flesh (Gen. 2:23). So, can unity in a marriage be bad? Apparently, yes. The word “helper” in Gen. 2:18 is neutral, but the context of pre-fallen Garden forces us to take it as a helper in good things or actions. Here, though, Sapphira “helps” her husband to fall short (Rom. 3:23), in stead of being the one who can help him to stay on the paths of righteousness.   

Freedom of a believer to share an additional donation with the church. The speech of St. Peter sets the proper boundaries for financial involvement of the believers. On one hand, there is a biblical principle of tithing (Lev. 27:30, Matt. 22:21). That’s why the apostles welcomed everything that was brought to their feet. On the other hand, St. Peter clearly teaches that it was a free-will offering to sell the property, and to keep the proceeds in full or in part for themselves (5:3). The real problem – they wanted to be known as great donors who sacrifice all their land yet pocket a part of the money. Doing this, they tried to rob the Lord, not humans. And the Lord took care of it/them.    

Immediacy of God’s action. The word “immediate” is a prominent feature of Mark’s Gospel (cp. 1:18, 20, 21, 23, 29…). Here we have this word used once – only in the second part relating to Sapphira. In the context of the initial growth of the church it was important that the apostles established the boundaries of the godly behavior. At the same time, we do not always see the similar speed of realization of cause-effect model. Same St. Peter says in his 2nd epistle: And count the patience of our Lord as salvation (3:15). So, the “speed” of God’s response cannot be used as an indication of goodness of the actions.       

Other themes:

“Bad Friday” story.

Whenever you read a biblical passage (not only a biblical one), always ask yourself a question: does it resemble any previous story? Here are two clues:

  three hours (cp. Matt. 27:45)

  Breathing last (cp. John 19:30).

What we see here is Good Friday elements which would lead to negative consequences. In three hours difference Sapphira was illuminated by the words of St. Peter, yet she preferred to stay in the dark. Both the husband and wife breathe their last, yet we do not see or expect a consequent resurrection.