Acts 13.6-12 follows Acts’ second protagonist, Paul outside of the relative familiarity of Jerusalem and Samaria and into Gentile Salamis. As with the two previous pericopes (see our column in the Jan and April issues), the first part of the text establishes the setting for the drama, introducing some of the key themes for the narrative. It employs parallelism to position Paul and Bar-Jesus as natural opponents.
Paul is ‘sent out in the Holy Spirit’ (13.4), in a similar way as the OT prophets,[1] and Bar-Jesus is described as a ψευδοπροφήτης, their natural antagonist. The text further parallels Paul and Bar-Jesus as it did Peter and Ananias and Peter and Simon. As Peter was filled with holy spirit (4.8), so is Paul (13.9). As Ananias’ heart was ‘filled to lie’ (5.3), so Bar-Jesus’ is ‘full of all deceit and villainy’ (13.10). This narrative setting is reminiscent of the OT prophets’ clashes with false prophets throughout Israel’s history, none more famous than Elijah’s power competition with the prophets of the foreign deity Baal. The text also describes Bar-Jesus as μάγος, associating the narrative with Exod 7-9.
These intertextual frames set up the audience to expect a power conflict between Paul and Bar-Jesus.
Paul’s speech in Acts 13.6-12 has a different structure to the previous speeches. It can be divided into three parts:
10.a Ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου καὶ πάσης ῥᾳδιουργίας, υἱὲ διαβόλου, ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης,
10.b οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας;
11.a καὶ νῦν ἰδοὺ χεὶρ κυρίου ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ ἔσῃ τυφλὸς μὴ βλέπων τὸν ἥλιον ἄχρι καιροῦ.
Paul begins by re-branding his opponent. He then asks a rhetorical question as Peter did to Ananias and Sapphira, which provides an effective contrast to his previous statements. His speech comes to a climax as he vividly curses his opponent by the ‘hand of the Lord.’
Like Peter’s pronouncements in Acts 4.32-5.11 and 8.9-25, Paul’s follow the same style of direct address. Instead of the heavy repetition of the second person pronoun, Paul creates a direct form of address by repeatedly re-labeling Bar-Jesus. Bar-Jesus means ‘son of Jesus,’ so in calling him υἱὲ διαβόλου the text employs irony to accuses him of being an imposter.[2] In calling him ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης Paul is confirming the narrator’s early description of Bar-Jesus as a false-prophet. It also identifies Bar-Jesus with Simon who is told is in ‘the bonds of unrighteousness’ (ἀδικίας), showing them both to be in opposition to God. In re-labeling his opponent Paul both reveals his opponent’s true identity and asserts his dominance over him.
Despite being structurally different to Peter’s curses, Paul’s advance on Bar-Jesus contains many of the same elements. The text overtly unveils the presence of the demonic in Paul’s re-branding Bar-Jesus υἱὲ διαβόλου. As with Ananias, the devil figure is associated with deceit. As well as being accused of deceit, Bar-Jesus’s crime is also associated with love of money. His is said to be full of fraud (13.10). That Bar-Jesus opposes Paul and tries to warn the proconsul off him suggests that he senses a threat to his employment. This love of money associated with Bar-Jesus, Simon, and Ananias and Sapphira, may imply that greed is a serious crime that requires instant punishment in the eyes of Luke-Acts’ author.
A theme less overtly present in Acts 13.6-12 is the impurity of the heart. However, it is implicit in Paul’s speech. Bar-Jesus is called Ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου καὶ πάσης ῥᾳδιουργίας (13.10) which is echoes Peter’s words to Ananias: διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ Σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (5.3). Repetition of opponents’ hearts being ‘filled with deceit’ demonstrates that these narratives are employing a similar lexical and conceptual network. The theme of insight into the heart is also suggested in the detail that, ‘Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him’ (13.9). As well as heightening the suspense of the scene, Paul’s searching gaze, coupled with his ability to rename his opponent, reveals that Paul has insight into Bar-Jesus inner self, his heart.
Like in the other pericopes, the texts uses a lexicon of immediacy to demonstrate Paul’s power. Paul begins his curse with καὶ νῦν ἰδοὺ (13.11), evoking Peter’s words to Sapphira. The narrator also uses the familiar lexicon of immediacy to show the instant effect of Paul’s words. παραχρῆμα again evokes Acts 5.10, and the text again employs the participle (περιάγων) to suggest the simultaneous action.
As well as showing a similarly immediate effect, the text also depicts a similar spatial dynamic. ἔπεσεν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ἀχλὺς καὶ σκότος conjures a visual of descent as the apostles’ opponents are brought down into submission.
Sergius Paulus’ reaction to Paul’s miracle testifies to its genuine, immediate power. The text describes: ‘When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed’ (13.12). The curse, like the apostles’ more positive signs, leads to conversion. As with the other pericopes, the reaction of the witnesses testifies to the power of the apostles’ words.
In regards to Greek and Coptic curse texts, blindness is one of the many common inflictions the spells command upon their victims. Spell text 92 asks the deity to ‘cause their eyes to fog and come out’ (195). However, Paul’s curse does differ to that of the curse texts in that he specifies it is only ‘for a while’ (13.11). This is a very different attitude to that of text 91 which says: ‘You must strike […] with a wicked disease […] and unhealing pain’, and ‘send to him an evil demon who torments them by day and by night’ (192-194). Whilst the curse texts focus on the vengeful infliction to the victim, Paul’s curse is intended to be temporary and ends on the note of possibility of future restoration and conversion.
As in the other Acts’ texts, in Acts 13.6-12 Bar Jesus is described as opposing God rather than the apostles. The text emphasises that God is the victim of Bar-Jesus’ opposition through Paul’s rhetorical question: ‘will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?’ (13.10).
Like the previous pericopes and some of the curse texts, Acts 13.6-12 identifies the antagonist as being under the influence of an evil force. However, many of these curse spells go further than the Acts’ text and instruct their enemy to be delivered into demonic possession. For example text 91 includes, ‘Send to him an evil demon’, and text 93: ‘You must make a demon descend upon her’ (197). This thought is closer to that of 1 Cor 5.5 than to any of the Acts’ texts and suggests that Luke-Acts views the powers of evil as a force to be released from rather than into.
Similarly to the curse spells, Acts 13.6-12 stresses the immediate effect of Paul’s words through the narrator’s and Paul’s lexicon, as well as through the texts use of participles. However, whilst many of the curse spells focus on immediate vindication which suggests they are motivated by a desire for revenge,[3] the narrator of Acts 13.6-12 finishes the pericope with the conversion of Sergius Paulus. This positive ending to the narrative is common through each of the episodes, as Acts 4.32-5.11 ends with the church being held in high esteem, and Acts 8.9-25 with the apostles proclaiming the good news to the Samaritans. The positive tone of these endings invites the interpretation that the apostle’s words of power are not primarily intended to vindicate but to demonstrate God’s power and the authority of their message.
Some spell texts from late Antiquity employ historiola in order to access powers demonstrated in past events. The curse texts often appeal to OT stories of God’s judgement against the villains of scripture such as Cain or the Assyrian army. For example, text 89 orders: ‘You must strike him just as you struck 185, 000 among the host of Assyrians in a single night’ (189). Text 90 declares: ‘As the blood of Cain called out to Abel his brother, the blood of this miserable man will call out’ (191).[4] Text 95 even references Moses’ encounter with Pharaoh’s magicians in detail (199-200). The three Acts’ texts don’t employ historiola but they do allude to OT intertexts that, as well as frame the scene within certain narrative expectations, function to suggest the Acts’ text has a similar authority to that of the OT. Both the Acts’ texts and the spell texts can be compared as appealing to the Jewish scriptures to acquire some form or authority or power.
Close analysis of the structure, form and style of the three Acts’ narratives, which we have looked at since the Jan 2015 issue, suggests that the texts portray the apostle’s speeches as words of power. For Ananias, Sapphira and Bar-Jesus these words of power have a supernatural effect. For Simon, the fear of their power provokes a repentant response. Peter’s encounters with opposition reveal that he has divine authority to curse as well as bless – an authority that associates him with the God of Israel. The similarities in Paul’s conflict with Bar-Jesus suggest that Paul should be viewed as having the same divine authority as Peter.
Repeated themes in the three encounters, such as insight into the heart, the presence of the satan and loss of the portion, suggest that the narratives should be grouped together. That each of the opponents’ crimes are associated with deceit and money suggests that these vices are of significant alarm to the writer of Luke-Acts. Simon and Bar-Jesus’ ‘magic’ only seems relevant because the writer views them as being based on deceit and greed, and serves to emphasise that Peter and Paul are in foreign territory. Parallelism between the satan and the Holy spirit emphasises that the presence of evil causes the apostles to be opposed the magician and the non-magician alike.
Finally, comparison to a selection of Coptic and Greek curse texts has revealed key similarities and differences. The purpose of many of the curse texts seems to be vindication or revenge, whilst in Acts the curse-like judgements seem to be a means to an end, the end being giving divine credibility to their message and to convert the Gentiles. Amongst others, a key similarity between Acts and the curse texts is seen in their desire for the immediate effect of their words, suggesting that words of power were deemed successful by their immediate effect.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One