Hearing the Word and Seeing the Light: Voice and Vision in Acts

Brittany E.Wilson
Duke University Divinity School, USA
It has become a cultural maxim in Western thought that the ancient Greeks were a visual culture,
whereas the ancient Hebrews were an aural culture. As David Chidester (1992) recounts in his book
Word and Light, discourse in the West often claims that the Greeks revered ‘the eye’, whereas the
Jews revered ‘the word’, or specifically God’s word. For the Greeks, the divine existed within
nature and was observable to the eye, whereas for the Jews, the divine existed beyond nature and
was heard with the ear. Indeed, for both Greeks and Jews, seeing and hearing were distinct
perceptual systems that had different - and often opposite - associations. Seeing was associated with
agency, immanence and continuity, whereas hearing was associated with receptivity, transcendence
and discontinuity. According to ancient optical and auditory theories, for example, the eye
functioned as an active agent that formed a continuous bond with the object of sight, whereas the
ear passively received sound from an external agent. Yet while both Jews and Greeks distinguished
between the senses of seeing and hearing, the Jews, unlike the Greeks, lifted up hearing as the
primary way to obey the divine. Since the dawn of the Enlightenment, this elevation of the ear
within Judaism has found renewed interest among intellectuals who critique the domination of the
eye in the West. Such critiques trace the rise of Western ocular centricism from the Greeks to the
inheritors of Greek Platonic thought - namely the Christians - and point to the Jewish preference for
hearing God’s word as evidence for the possibility of valuing different epistemological modes.
Of course, characterizing Greek culture (and subsequent Christianity) as ‘visual’ and Jewish
culture as ‘verbal’ is an overstatement. Greek culture was certainly ‘a culture of light’, as classicist
Eleftheria Bernidaki-Aldous observes, but Greek authors also lauded the verbal, especially with
respect to the spoken word. (Indeed, speech and aurality were often linked in ancient discourse,
although some texts, such as Sir. 17.1-7, list speaking and hearing as two separate but related
‘senses’.) Moreover, Christian creedal debates at the Council of Nicaea eventually settled on the
language of ‘Light from Light’ to describe the relationship between God and Jesus, but not all
Christians privileged visual over verbal modes when discussing the human-divine relationship. And
while many Jewish texts emphasize the importance of the verbal, encapsulated most famously in the
Shema (Deut. 6.4-5), Jewish texts such as Isaiah, for instance, also frequently depict sight as a
central metaphor for perceiving God. Biblical scholar Yael Avrahami (2012) has even argued that
Jewish scripture as a whole is more visually oriented in that sight is the main sense in biblical
epistemology, especially at the level of discourse. Furthermore, religious discourse more broadly
features both seeing and hearing as the most prominent modes of sensory perception and often pairs
these two senses together (insofar as we can discuss seeing and hearing in the ancient world as
‘senses’). Indeed, religious texts are often synesthetic, meaning that there is a sensory change - or a
change in the typical way we recognize the world - when humans encounter the divine. In an effort
to express divine-human encounters, authors sometimes invert or conflate different perceptual
modes, claiming, for instance, that a person sees a sound or hears a light.
Yet while the association of the ‘visual’ Greeks and the ‘verbal’ Hebrews needs continued
qualification, this association should not be wholly discarded. Numerous Greek texts - especially
Greek philosophical texts - typically rank sight at the top of a hierarchy of senses, a tradition that
goes back to Plato himself. And while sight may be the dominant sense in Jewish scripture
conceptually and linguistically (per Avrahami 2012: 69-74), the posture of hearing remains key in
scriptural texts when it comes to divine-human relations. Unlike Greek texts that often rank hearing
below sight or disparage hearing altogether, Jewish scriptural texts repeatedly represent receptivity
to the divine through the sense of hearing and do not identify sight as a superior sense. Some texts,
such as Deuteronomy, even lift up hearing - not seeing - as a primary sense.
Within this larger debate, the book of Acts provides a pivotal place to unravel these intertwining
threads concerning the visual and verbal. First, Acts narrates the outward expansion of the gospel
within Greek culture and its reception among both Jews and Gentiles. Luke shapes his narrative to
depict this outward expansion of the gospel from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1.8), and
he also has an abiding interest in connecting the gospel to the world stage, a world stage that mainly
falls within the Greek East. Secondly, scholars have often observed that sight is a prominent theme
throughout Luke’s two volumes, especially Acts. Luke emphasizes the sense of sight in his gospel,
characterizing Jesus as one who brings ‘sight to the blind’ (Lk. 4.18; cf. 7.18-23), and Luke’s
emphasis on sight continues in Acts. In short, Acts provides a prime place to situate an early
Christian text along the ‘audition versus vision’ spectrum. By doing so, we can evaluate widespread
assumptions that label Judaism as logocentric and Gentile, or ‘Hellenistic’, Christianity as
ocularcentric. Luke himself does not directly engage the ‘senses’ debate, but his narrative can
enable us to see where his predispositions lie.
Given Luke’s emphasis on sight and the Gentile reception of the gospel, as well as the scholarly
tendency to identify Luke himself as a Gentile, we might be tempted to think that Luke’s emphasis
on sight derives from his larger Hellenistic milieu. In other words, Luke’s incorporation of the
theme of sight evinces the so-called ocularcentricism of the wider Greek world. Yet while sight
plays a central role in Acts, hearing also plays a central - if not greater - role. Unlike many of his
Greek, or ‘Hellenized’, contemporaries, Luke does not rank the sense of sight above hearing.
Instead, seeing and hearing are often wed together in Acts, with hearing - and its correlate speaking
- emerging as the more prominent of the two. Luke is of course influenced by his surrounding
Greek culture, but he is ultimately indebted to the tradition within Judaism that identifies hearing as
a primary way to perceive God and to follow God rightly.
To explore Luke’s reliance on hearing as a key epistemological posture toward the divine, this
article will first address the theme of sight in Acts, focusing especially on the theme of visions.
Visions feature prominently throughout Luke’s second volume, yet with the exception of Stephen’s
vision in Acts 7, all the visions in Acts are in fact auditory visions. That is to say, the visions
primarily involve the reception of divine speech, not images. The next section will explore in detail
the exception of Stephen’s vision and discuss how even this vision betrays Luke’s favoring of the
verbal. After situating Stephen’s vision within its verbal context, the article will then explore how
this analysis opens up key themes concerning the visual and verbal in Acts as a whole. Finally, the
article concludes by reflecting on how Luke’s emphasis on hearing and proclaiming God’s word
evinces his reliance on Jewish ‘verbal’ traditions and why Luke connects the verbal with the visual
in the manner he does.
Sight and Visions in Acts
As scholars have often noted, sight language plays an important role throughout Luke’s two
volumes. In both Luke and Acts (as well as in religious discourse more broadly), the metaphor of
sight is linked to perceiving God in a manner that conveys agency. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus
specifically characterizes himself as one who brings ‘recovery of sight to the blind’ (Lk. 4.18), and
he confirms his identity as the coming one because he brings sight to the blind (7.21-22). Jesus
reaches out to the physically blind (14.7-24; 18.35-43), and Jesus, along with other agents of God,
is associated with light (1.77-79; 2.32; 16.8; cf. Acts 13.47; 26.23). Jesus also links light, blindness
and the eye with morality (Lk. 6.39-42; 11.33-36) and reflects the theory of extramission - or the
theory that the eye actively emits rays toward its object - when he describes the eye as ‘the lamp of
the body’ (11.34). During the passion narrative, Luke distinctly casts Jesus as both the subject and
object of sight, as when Jesus’ gaze prompts Peter to weep (22.61) and when others actively gaze
upon his crucified body (23.35, 48-49). ‘Seeing’ Jesus is also key during his transfiguration and
resurrection appearances, especially on the way to Emmaus when the disciples’ eyes ‘were kept
from recognizing’ Jesus and are later ‘opened’ (24.16, 31).
In Acts, sight continues to play an important role in relation to active perception. Paul loses and
recovers his sight in Acts 9, and he participates in the blinding of the Jewish prophet Bar-Jesus in
Acts 13. Peter says that being an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry is the requirement for Judas’
replacement (Acts 1.21-22), and other followers exercise their own piercing gazes akin to Jesus
(3.4; 11.6; 13.9; 14.9; 23.1). Light (and sight) represents divine revelation, which is increasingly
extended to the Gentiles (e.g., 13.47), and signs - which are actively performed - become a visible
confirmation of the divine (e.g., 2.22). Divinely bestowed visions also occur throughout the
narrative of Acts and frequently direct the course of the gospel’s dispersion.
Of all these visual elements within Acts, which will be explored in more detail below, the
inclusion of visions is especially noteworthy. In the New Testament, visions appear most frequently
in the book of Acts, with the exception of the book of Revelation. During Peter’s Pentecost speech,
Luke prepares us for these numerous visions in Acts when Peter quotes the prophet Joel, saying, ‘In
the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams’ (2.17). Seeing visions signifies the last days, according to Luke, and these words find
fulfillment in seven narrated visions that occur in Acts. Of these ‘visions’ or ‘dreams’, the first
vision appears to Stephen in Acts 7. Paul then sees a vision on the road to Damascus in Acts 9,
which he retells in Acts 22 and 26, and this vision intersects with the disciple Ananias’s vision in the
same chapter. In Acts 10, Peter and the Gentile Cornelius have intersecting visions, which Peter -
like Paul - goes on to retell (11.1-18). Finally, Paul receives two more visions in Acts 16 and 18
respectively: one a ‘vision’ (όραμα) of a Macedonian man pleading with Paul (16.9), and the other a
‘vision’ (όραμα) of ‘the Lord’ that tells Paul to remain in Corinth (18.9). In addition to these seven
direct visions, we also hear of three visions indirectly: Stephen recounts Moses’ vision in the
wilderness (7.30-38), Jesus mentions that Paul is having a vision during Ananias’s own vision
(9.12), and Paul describes an otherwise unmentioned vision when he first retells his Damascus road
experience (22.17-21). Furthermore, the numerous angelic appearances in Acts may qualify as
visionary experiences since the angels typically ωφθη, or ‘appear’, which is the passive form of the
verb οράω, ‘I see’.
Dreams and visions were a prominent motif in Greco-Roman literature, but dreams and visions
also frequent Jewish scriptural texts, especially the Pentateuch and Jewish apocalyptic texts. Luke is
not hermetically sealed from Greco- Roman texts, and he is, of course, shaped and influenced by
such texts. Yet as John Miller argues, Luke - in his depiction of divinely bestowed visions - is in fact
mainly influenced by Jewish vision accounts, for Jewish texts assume the divine origin of visions as
opposed to many Greco-Roman texts that evince suspicion concerning the divine origin of visions
(2007: 21-63, esp. 62-63). What is more, many of the visions in Acts also resemble visions - or
more specifically theophanies - in Jewish texts in that they are predominantly auditory. As in
theophanies, divine communication in Acts sometimes includes dramatic visual elements, such as
light and fire, but the visions themselves mainly occur at the aural level. Although auditory visions
were common in Greco-Romans texts as well, Luke unapologetically records humans responding to
visions in which they are directly addressed by the divine.
To be clear, some of these auditory visions in Acts contain striking visual elements that intersect
with the verbal in key ways. Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for example, includes both an enigmatic
image of a sheet-like object and a divine ‘voice’ (φωνή) that addresses Peter a total of three times
(10.9-16; cf. 11.4-10). Peter is at first puzzled by this vision (10.17), but after he hears Cornelius’s
account of his own auditory vision (vv. 30-33), Peter then understands that his vision concerns the
inclusion of ‘profane’ Gentiles (v. 34; cf. v. 28). Thus, while Peter’s vision includes an evocative
image, Peter only understands this image - and thus God’s will - by listening to God’s voice and by
hearing the Gentile Cornelius. As with Peter, Paul’s vision in Acts 9 also contains dramatic visual
elements. Jesus appears as a ‘light’ (φως) that temporarily blinds Paul (here Saul) (9.3; cf. 22.6;
26.23), and his restoration of sight signifies his newfound ability to ‘see’ Jesus. Yet Jesus also
appears as a ‘voice’ (φωνή) that addresses Saul by name and leaves his travelling companions
‘speechless’ (ένεοί) (9.7; cf. 22.7, 9; 26.14). Furthermore, the content of Saul’s ‘vision’ comprises
Jesus’ speech (9.4-6; cf. 22.7-8, 10; 26.14-18). The disciple Ananias then receives a strictly auditory
vision during which he is told - at least according to some manuscripts - that Saul is simultaneously
having a vision of Ananias restoring his sight, even though Saul is blind and cannot see (9.12).
Jesus’ words prompt Ananias to restore Saul’s sight, and ‘immediately’ (ευθέως) after he recovers
Saul begins proclaiming the good news (9.19b-20). Saul’s turn from persecutor to proclaimer is
now complete (7.58-8.3; 9.1-30), and his loss and recovery of sight mainly enables him to proclaim
the good news for others to hear. Saul now perceives God’s action in Jesus without impediment, and
he proclaims the word as a result, even though this word - at least initially - falls on deaf ears (9.23-
25, 29).
For the most part, however, visions in Acts primarily comprise divine speech, and many lack
such vivid visual details entirely. Some visions briefly describe the one delivering the divine
discourse, as when Paul sees a man of Macedonia pleading with him, saying, ‘Come over to
Macedonia and help us’ (16.9), and Cornelius sees an angel of God approaching him before the
angel speaks (10.3; cf. 10.30; 11.13). Other visions lack even such descriptors and instead
immediately plunge into direct discourse. For instance, Ananias’s vision is strictly auditory, as is
Paul’s account of his trance-like encounter with Jesus in the Jerusalem temple (22.17-21) and his
final vision in Corinth (18.9-10). Paul’s two retellings of his Damascus road vision also increasingly
focus on Jesus’ words (22.7-8, 10; 26.14-18), and angelic appearances almost always involve
divinely delivered words. Moreover, divine speech also sounds at key moments in Acts without any
reference to a vision. ‘The Lord’ speaks to Paul in 23.11, and Paul recounts what an angel of the
Lord says to him in 27.23-24. The Spirit also speaks as a character in its own right, as when the
Spirit commands the church in Antioch to ‘set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which
I have called them’ (13.2). Indeed, the divine ‘voice’ (φωνή) reverberates at key moments in Luke-
Acts, and this heavenly speech does not always manifest itself in visions.
Stephen’s Voice and Vision in Acts 7
Of all the visions in Acts, Stephen’s vision in Acts 7 is the most visually oriented since it lacks
divine speech. In 7.55, Luke writes that Stephen ‘gazed [άτενίσας] into heaven and saw [εϊδεν] the
glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God’. Neither God nor Jesus speaks to Stephen,
and Luke twice reiterates that Stephen beholds this heavenly presence by using the verbs ‘gaze’
(άτενίζω) and ‘see’ (οράω). Yet when Stephen’s vision is situated within its immediate context, it
becomes clear that this vision ultimately furthers Luke’s abiding concern in speech and hearing.
Stephen’s vision occurs directly after he delivers a lengthy speech - the longest speech in all of Acts
- and it ultimately functions to confirm Stephen’s innocence in the face of false charges. Indeed,
Luke’s emphasis on ‘the verbal’ is evident prior to Stephen’s speech (6.8-15), in the speech itself
(7.1-53) and in the aftermath of the speech wherein Stephen sees his vision (7.54-8.1). In each of
these sections, the visual and verbal intertwine, but Luke lifts up the verbal, and more specifically
hearing, as a key way to discern God’s will.
Prior to his speech, Stephen first comes to the attention of his Jewish adversaries because he
performs ‘great wonders and signs among the people’ (6.8). Stephen’s performance of these visual
‘signs’ (σημεία), however, leads the antagonists to ‘argue [συζητοΰντες] with him’ (v. 9). Stephen’s
adversaries cannot withstand ‘the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke [έλάλει]’ (v. 10). And
so the adversaries secretly instigate some men to claim they have ‘heard’ (άκηκόαμεν) Stephen
speak ‘blasphemous words’ (ρήματα βλάσφημα) against Moses and God (v. 11), an accusation that
false witnesses repeat before the Jewish council (vv. 13-14). Thus, while Stephen’s ‘signs’ may
initially bring him into his opponents’ purview, Stephen’s Spirit-inspired speech results in his
forceful seizure, as well as the duplicitous speech levied against him. Stephen’s adversaries do not
listen to him, and they try to fight Stephen’s words with words of their own.
Stephen’s words do not lead to genuine hearing, but they do lead to Stephen becoming the object
of other people’s sight. After stirring up the people, elders, and scribes, the instigators - along with
the crowds they have incited - seize Stephen and lead him to the council (6.12). The council then
‘gazes’ (άτενίσαντες) at Stephen and ‘sees’ (εϊδον) that his face is like the face of an angel (6.15).
The council’s ‘gazing’ and ‘seeing’ in fact forms an inclusio with Stephen’s own ‘gazing’ and
‘seeing’ later in 7.55 since Luke uses the same verbs - άτενίζω and οράω - in both instances.
Stephen, then, may be the passive object of sight prior to his speech, but he also actively exercises
his sight after his speech. Ultimately, however, Stephen exits Acts as the object of other people’s
sight when he is killed via stoning. Luke specifically notes that there are ‘witnesses [μάρτυρες]’
present at Stephen’s death (7.58), reminding us of those who witnessed Jesus’ death (Lk. 23.35, 48-
49). Luke also singles out Paul, or Saul, as an onlooker who keeps watch over the coats of the
witnesses and approves of their killing Stephen (Acts 7.58; 8.1). In the end, Stephen’s words result
in his visual subjection and death; Stephen becomes the first Christian ‘martyr’ (μάρτυς) - an object
of spectacle - because he is someone who ‘testifies’ (μαρτύρομαι).
Stephen’s speech itself (7.1-53) likewise points to the intersection of visual and verbal modes
and the special import of the verbal. This emphasis is first evident in Stephen’s retelling of a vision;
namely, God’s appearance to Moses in the burning bush (Acts 7.30-38; cf. Exod. 3.1-10). At the
outset, Stephen describes this theophany in strictly visual terms. He relates that an angel ‘appeared
[ωφθη]’ to Moses in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, ‘in the flame of a burning bush’ (Acts 7.30).
When Moses ‘saw [ίδών]’ this fiery manifestation of the divine presence, he was amazed at ‘the
vision [το όραμα]’ and moved forward ‘to look [κατανοησαι]’ (v. 31). At this point, though, the
‘voice [φωνή] of the Lord’ interrupts Moses’ approach, saying, ‘I am the God of your fathers, the
God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob’ (v. 32). Moses physically reacts to this voice with trembling
and now does not dare ‘to look [κατανοησαι]’ (v. 32). ‘The Lord’ continues to speak to Moses using
direct discourse (v. 33), and God’s final words bring together the senses of sight and hearing: ‘I
have surely seen [ίδων εϊδον] the suffering of my people in Egypt, and I have heard [ή'κουσα] their
groaning, and I have come down to release them’ (v. 34). While the voice claims that God both sees
and hears (and has ‘descended [κατέβην]’), Moses cannot look upon - or ‘see’ - God. Instead, God
eventually bestows Moses with ‘living words [λόγια ζωντα]’ (v. 38) - or the Law - to give to God’s
people.
In Stephen’s retelling of this famous scriptural theophany, Luke primarily depicts God’s presence
as a voice that directly addresses Moses (vv. 32-34). Although God both sees and hears, humans
cannot behold God; although fire accompanies divine speech, the divine itself cannot be seen.
Luke’s repeated claim that it was an angel who ‘appeared’ to Moses (vv. 30, 35, 38) also suggests a
reluctance to describe God’s visual appearance. Indeed, Luke twice repeats that the visual
manifestation in the bush was an angel (v. 30), or God working through an angel (v. 35). Luke even
suggests that God was ‘with the angel who spoke to [Moses]’ (v. 38), even though the voice is
explicitly identified as God’s elsewhere (vv. 31, 33). Overall, Luke downplays the visual
manifestation of God in this vision and instead lifts up God’s words and Moses’ response.
According to Luke, humans are to hear God’s voice and respond.
Luke’s logocentric depiction of Moses’ vision in the Sinai wilderness provides a striking contrast
to the depiction of this same event by Luke’s contemporary Philo of Alexandria. The Jewish
philosopher Philo of Alexandria was deeply indebted to Platonism in his allegorical interpretations
of scripture, and his account of the burning bush likewise evinces an indebtedness to the Platonic -
and wider Greek philosophical - privileging of sight over hearing. Like Luke, Philo depicts the
wedding of voice and vision in the Sinai wilderness and contends that the divine cannot be beheld
by usual human perception. Unlike Luke, Philo encapsulates the incident of the burning bush as ‘the
miracle of sight [ό'ψεως]’ (Mos. 1.66). Philo even describes God’s voice as visible speech during
Moses’ theophany atop Mount Sinai, to which the burning bush theophany acts as a prelude.
According to Philo, humans cannot hear God’s voice, but they can paradoxically see God’s voice:
‘it is the case that the voice of men is audible, but the voice of God truly visible. Why so? Because
whatever God says is not words but deeds, which are judged by the eyes rather than the ears’
(Decal. 47). Throughout his writings, Philo evinces this preference for the sense of sight over the
sense of hearing. Sight is ‘the queen of the senses’, Philo writes, and ranks above hearing, since
sight is more active and hearing more ‘womanish’ and sluggish (Abr. 150). Sight is also equated
with wisdom and the intellect and is thus ‘the best of the senses’ (Opif. 53), and Jacob’s name-
switch from ‘Jacob’ to ‘Israel’ symbolizes his transition from ‘hearing’ to ‘seeing’ in the ascent
toward perfection of knowledge (Conf. 72). Philo consistently privileges sight in his writings, and
this privileging is evident even in his accounts of Moses’ theophanies, the most synesthetic
moments in all Philo’s writings.
Contra Philo, Luke presents God’s voice as something that is primarily heard, not seen. Divine
speech here - and elsewhere in Acts - occurs in a vision, but divine speech is something one hears.
Luke’s subtle preference for hearing over seeing in his account of the burning bush becomes even
more explicit as Stephen continues his speech. After recounting Moses’ theophany, Stephen moves
to a more direct distrust of the visual, namely through his critique of idolatry (7.39-43). As Stephen
goes on to explain, human attempts to behold God by crafting visual images of the divine are
misguided. Stephen reprimands the Israelites who made a calf ‘idol’ (εΐ'δωλον) and reveled in ‘the
works of their hands’ (7.41; cf. 7.43), linking this idolatrous act to the Jerusalem temple, which is a
‘house made by human hands’ (7.48). Once again, Philo’s own account of this incident is instructive
by way of comparison. According to Philo, the golden calf actually represents hearing - not seeing -
because the calf was made from melted down, golden earrings (Post. 165-69). Philo writes: ‘The
calf, you observe, is not made out of all the things with which women deck themselves, but only
their earrings [Exod. 32.2], for the lawgiver is teaching us that no manufactured god is a God for
sight and in reality, but for the ear to hear of’ (Post. 166). As in his account of Moses’ Sinaitic
theophanies, Philo adheres to his sensory hierarchy and claims that hearing is ultimately inferior to
seeing. Luke, on the other hand, evinces no concern in preserving the hierarchy of sight in his
critique of idolatry.
At the very end of his speech, Stephen concludes this critique of visual representations of the
divine by lifting up the import of hearing God. Stephen begins his speech by saying, ‘Listen
[ακούσατε] to me’ (7.2), and he ends his speech by condemning his Jewish audience’s inability to
hear. Directly after Stephen critiques the idolatry of ‘our’ ancestors (first person plural), he
dramatically turns to his Jewish hearers, addressing them with the second person plural: ‘You
stiffnecked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears’ (7.51). These listeners have uncircumcised
‘ears [ώσίν]’ - a reproach concerning Israel’s aural deficiency also found in Jer. 6.10 - and they are
guilty, according to Stephen, of a myriad of crimes, including opposing the Holy Spirit, killing the
‘righteous one’, and not keeping the Law (vv. 51-53). Stephen’s third and final accusation is
especially pointed given his opponents’ initial charges against Stephen. The Jewish opponents
accuse Stephen of not keeping Moses’ Law (6.11, 13-14), and Stephen in turn accuses them of not
keeping the Law (7.53), or the ‘living words [λόγια ζωντα]’ that Moses received and gave to God’s
people (7.38).
In the immediate aftermath of this weighty accusation, Luke continues to paint Stephen’s
opponents as ones who do not rightly hear God. ‘After hearing [ακούοντες] these things’, Stephen’s
Jewish auditors react with anger: their hearts are enraged and they grind their teeth at Stephen
(7.54). At this juncture, Stephen becomes filled with the Holy Spirit, and he gazes into heaven and
sees his vision (7.55). As noted earlier, no divine voice accompanies this vision. Yet Stephen
immediately communicates the content of this vision to his auditors by repeating the narrator’s
words almost verbatim: ‘Behold! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right
[hand] of God!’ (7.56) (// ‘he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the
right [hand] of God’ [7.55]). In response to this declaration, however, his auditors ‘cover their ears
[ωτα]’ and rush forward to kill him (7.57-60). In short, Stephen’s narration of his vision results in
his death; his hearers’ earlier response of anger now escalates to violence. By refusing to hear
Stephen’s words, his Jewish listeners demonstrate once again their resistance to the Spirit. Unlike
his hearers who are ‘always opposing the Holy Spirit’ (v. 51), Stephen is ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’
when he receives his vision (v. 55). Within the narrative logic of the story, Stephen’s vision
functions as a divine confirmation of his previous speech (7.1-53), but his listeners do not have ears
to hear. Stephen’s vision becomes the basis of further proclamation, but his hearers actively refuse
to hear his divinely instigated words.
The Visual and Verbal in Acts
The above discussion of Stephen’s voice and vision in Acts 7 provides a window into Luke’s larger
interest in the verbal and its intersection with the visual. Indeed, all of the points highlighted in this
key episode reflect larger tendencies in Acts as a whole. This section will now look at these
tendencies in turn, starting with Luke’s understanding of witness and the relationship between signs,
speech and spectacle. The section will then turn toward Luke’s critique of idolatry and its
connection to the theme of bringing light to the Gentiles and the spreading of God’s word. Finally, it
will conclude by discussing the key disposition of hearing and its intersection with speaking and
seeing. Throughout this discussion, we shall see that Luke links the visual with the verbal, a linkage
that largely derives from Jewish scripture - especially Isaiah - and that Luke ultimately highlights
the centrality of the verbal, especially in terms of hearing and proclaiming God’s word.
As in Stephen’s speech, witnessing - or ‘testifying’ (μαρτύρομαι) - is often predicated on sight in
Acts. In Acts 1, the risen Jesus ‘appears’ to the disciples for forty days (1.3), and Peter explains that
Judas’s replacement must be ‘one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and out among us ... one of these must become a witness [μάρτυρα] with us to
his resurrection’ (1.21-22). ‘Seeing’ Jesus becomes a prerequisite for speaking about him, and Luke
continues to connect sight with testimony elsewhere in Acts. Luke, for instance, identifies Peter and
the other apostles as God-chosen ‘witnesses [μάρτυρες]’ to Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection,
who provide ‘testimony [μαρτύριον]’ to these events and reinforce that the prophets likewise
testified to these events (2.32; 4.33; 10.39-43). Paul, who is appointed as a ‘witness [μάρτυς] to all
the world’, also bases his testimony on what he has ‘seen and heard’ (22.15; cf. 26.16). Just as Luke
begins his gospel by noting that he has relied on both ‘eyewitnesses [αύτόπται] and ministers of the
word [λόγου]’ (Lk. 1.2), so does Luke describe testimony as involving seeing, hearing and
speaking. Yet while sight often functions as a prelude to proclamation in Acts, the ultimate goal is
testifying so that others can hear God’s word.
As with sight and testimony, visual ‘signs’ play a similarly supportive role in that they confirm
the verbal. In the first half of Acts up until the turn to the
Gentiles, the phrase ‘signs and wonders’ is a frequent refrain. Leo O’Reilly observes that ‘signs’
(σημεία) in Acts - as in Jewish scriptural texts - primarily function to authenticate God’s word or to
demonstrate the divine origin of that word (1987: 170-211). Although God’s ‘word’ often appears
without reference to signs, signs are univocally paired with speech throughout Acts 1-15. With
respect to Stephen, for instance, his performance of signs occurs in tandem with his anger-inducing
words. Others who perform signs, such as Peter, John, Philip, Barnabas and Paul, do so in the
context of their preaching and proclamation. Like the signs carried out by Moses in Exodus (which
Luke mentions in Acts 7.36) or God’s salvific signs in Deuteronomy, signs in Acts are miracles that
verify a person’s prophetic credentials or lend credence to divine action. Signs and ‘the word’ are
complementary in Acts, and signs can also function as a verbum visible, or visible evidence that
evinces God’s message (O’Reilly 1987: 200-207). But in Acts, miracles more broadly speaking
cannot be understood apart from the preaching of the word that accompanies them. In other words,
signs do not have any meaning apart from proclamation, for they serve to substantiate speech.
While speaking God’s word is often based on sight and sometimes paired with signs, Stephen’s
story shows us that such speech can also lead to the speaker becoming the object of sight. Luke’s
account of Stephen as the first Christian ‘witness’, or ‘martyr’ (μάρτυς), demonstrates that
testimony can lead to persecution, or spectacle. While Stephen’s death remains the first and most
detailed death in Acts, Luke suggests that other followers likewise become targets of public
spectacle. Peter and other apostles become the object of sight when they are incarcerated (5.17-18;
12.3-5), and James, the brother of John, when he is killed (12.1-2). Paul likewise endures public
persecution (9.16, 23-30; 14.19; 16.19-24, 37; 21.27-36), and he ironically becomes the object of
‘the gaze’ when he loses his power ‘to gaze’ in Acts 9. What is more, while in Ephesus, Paul’s travel
companions are dragged into the city’s ‘theater’ (θέατρον) (19.29), a word that also means
‘spectacle’ and a frequent site of later Christian martyrdoms. Just as Luke calls Jesus’ crucifixion a
‘spectacle’ (θεωρία) (Lk. 23.48), so do Jesus’ followers become targets of the public gaze. Jesus
warns his followers that those who testify may be persecuted (Lk. 21.12-19), and his foretelling
comes to fruition in Acts. To be sure, those who are persecuted in Acts can also be the subject of
sight, as when Stephen ‘gazes’ into heaven (Acts 7.55). Peter, John and Paul also demonstrate their
perspicacious perception (3.4-7; 11.6; 13.9; 14.9; 23.1), and Paul mediates the blinding of the false
prophet Bar-Jesus (13.9-12). But more often than not, Luke reiterates that those who testify may
very well become the object of sight.
As we have witnessed, the visual and verbal interconnect in a manner that primarily points to
God’s word in Acts. Luke, however, can also be harshly critical of visual modes of perception, a
critique that is nowhere more apparent than in Luke’s persistent critique of idolatry. Luke’s
condemnation of idols - or visual representations of the divine - first sounds in Stephen’s speech,
and this condemnation continues throughout Luke’s second volume. After Acts 7, Luke’s
admonitions against idolatry are directed solely toward Gentiles, suggesting that idolatry is a Greek,
or ‘pagan’, problem. When the Jerusalem council decides to include Gentiles, they stipulate that
Gentiles must abstain from idol meat (15.20), a decision that is reiterated twice more in Acts (15.29;
21.25). When Paul arrives in Athens, he is deeply vexed ‘to see that the city was full of idols
[κατείδωλον]’ (17.16), and he stresses that God ‘does not live in temples made by human hands’
(17.24). He goes on to explain that: ‘we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or
stone, an image [χαράγματι] formed by the art and imagination of humans’ (17.29). Instead, Paul
explains, we are ‘to seek [ζητεΐν] for God, and perhaps grope [ψηλαφήσειαν] for him and find him’
(17.27). Unlike the many objects of worship that Paul ‘looked at carefully [άναθεωρων]’ when he
arrived in Athens (17.23), God cannot be looked upon, but only ‘groped for’, an image that denotes
the actions of a blind person (cf. Acts 13.11). Finally, during Paul’s stay in Ephesus, the silversmith
Demetrius incites a riot by accusing Paul of saying that ‘gods made with hands are not gods’
(19.26). Demetrius warns that the artisans’ trade may fall into disrepute and that the goddess
Artemis - whose statue fell from heaven as the town clerk clarifies (19.35) - will be scorned and
deprived of her majesty (19.27). Those who craft Artemis’s silver shrines violently resist Paul’s
critique of idolatry, and according to Luke, these Gentile artisans underscore that visual
representations of the divine are antithetical to faithfulness.
Luke’s critique of idols is typical of Jewish polemic and reflects a reliance on the Jewish
prophetic tradition (e.g., Isa. 40.18-20; 44.9-20). Luke’s critique of idols also more specifically
reflects the theme of the ‘New Exodus’ - or the recasting of the Exodus tradition in light of Israel’s
exile - as found in Isa. 40-55. According to David Pao (2000), Luke’s emphasis on the impotence of
idols is one of four principal New Exodus themes that Luke draws from Isaiah and weaves
throughout his second volume. The other three Isaianic New Exodus themes that Luke incorporates
include the restoration of Israel, the inclusion of the Gentiles and the agency of God’s word, of
which the latter two are especially important for our purposes. First, when Luke references Gentile
salvation, he typically turns to Isaiah and draws from the sight and light imagery found therein, as
when Paul says that he has been appointed ‘to be a light for the Gentiles’ (13.47; cf. Isa 49.6).
Secondly, as in Isa. 40-55, Luke depicts God’s ‘word’ (λόγος) as an independent agent that grows
and accomplishes God’s purposes. Throughout the second half of Acts in particular, ‘the word’
appears as the subject of verbs, taking on the characteristics of a powerful entity (e.g., 6.7; 12.24;
13.49; 19.20). Luke’s critique of idolatry thus intersects with his wider reliance on Isa. 40-55 and
the primacy of God’s word found therein, as well as the visual imagery associated with Gentile
inclusion.
However, even more significant than Luke’s reliance on Isaiah for his depiction of idolatry, light
and God’s word is his emphasis on the import of hearing, an emphasis that occurs throughout the
Lukan narrative (see Darr 1994: 87-107). Luke sets the stage for this key posture of hearing at the
outset of Acts when he describes the birth of the church at Pentecost. To be sure, Luke does not shy
away from describing the Spirit’s descent in visual terms. Using the passive form of οράω (‘I see’),
Luke relates that the tongues of the Spirit ‘appeared [ωφθησαν]’ among the believers and that they
appeared in the form of tongues ‘like fire [ώσε'ι πυρος]’ (2.3). At the same time, the Spirit’s descent
is an event that mainly lifts up the import of hearing. The arrival of the Spirit is first heralded by a
‘sound’ (ήχος) from heaven that fills the entire house (2.2). At this juncture the Spirit manifests
itself as ‘divided tongues [γλωσσαι]’ (v. 3), an image that signifies speech. These flame-like divided
tongues in turn miraculously enable followers ‘to speak [λαλεΐν] in other tongues [γλώσσαις]’ or
different languages (v. 4). Devout Jews living in Jerusalem congregate in reaction to ‘this sound’, or
‘this voice [φωνής ταύτης]’ (v. 6), a singular term that may collectively reference both the sound
from heaven and the resulting tongue speaking. The diaspora and Jerusalem Jews, however, do not
marvel at this miracle of sound and speech, but at their ability to hear this speech: ‘How is it that
we hear [άκούομεν], each of us, in our own native language? ... we hear [άκούομεν] them speaking
in our own tongues about God’s great deeds’ (vv. 8, 11; cf. v. 6). In what Lukan scholars often term
a reversal of Babel (Gen. 11.1-9), Luke gathers together the world’s diverse languages and depicts
followers speaking, not a singular language, but multiple languages that myriad Jews are able to
hear and understand. With the birth of the church, the Spirit enables receptive listening among
God’s people. The descent of the Spirit inaugurates the key roles of speech and hearing; at
Pentecost, divinely enabled speech and hearing further results in divinely enabled testimony.
From Acts 2 onward, hearing and testifying to God’s word forms a distinctive pattern in Luke’s
narrative. Followers hear directives from the divine, often in the form of visions, and they proclaim
‘the word’ as a result. The reaction to these words tends to be mixed: some people hear the word,
but others reject it. What is more, those who are receptive to hearing God’s word gradually shift
over the course of Acts. In Acts 2, Luke highlights the Jewish people’s ability to hear, for the
approximately three thousand people converted that day are all Jews from ‘every nation under
heaven’ (2.5). A turn toward the Jewish people not hearing, however, begins with Stephen’s speech
in Acts 7 when his Jewish hearers cover their ears. Soon after this active ear-covering on the part of
the Jews, Gentile reception toward the good news first arises in ch. 10, when the Gentile centurion
Cornelius explains to Peter that he and his fellow Gentiles ‘are here before God to hear [άκουσαι]
all the things that have been commanded to you by the Lord’ (10.33; cf. 10.22). The Gentiles’
receptivity to hearing God’s word continues in ch. 13, when the Gentile proconsul Sergius Paulus
wants ‘to hear the word of God [άκοΰσαι τον λόγον του θεού]’ (13.7) and when the Gentiles of
Pisidian Antioch respond with joy when they ‘hear [άκούοντα]’ that Paul and Barnabas are turning
to the Gentiles (13.48). From this point onward, Gentiles continue to ‘listen’ to Paul and his
companions (e.g., 14.8-9; 16.25), and this openness through the sense of hearing reflects the larger
turn toward the Gentiles in the narrative of Acts as a whole.
To be clear, Luke does not depict the Jewish people univocally ‘shutting their ears’. Both Jews
and Greeks in Asia ‘heard [άκοΰσαι] the word of the Lord’ (19.10), and Jews in Jerusalem ‘listened
[ή'κουον]’ to Paul (at least until he mentions the Gentiles) (22.22). ‘King Agrippa’ - a Herodian Jew
conversant with the Jewish faith (26.3) - wants ‘to hear [άκοΰσαι]’ Paul (25.22), even though he is
ultimately not persuaded (26.29-32). And Jewish leaders in Rome want ‘to hear [άκοΰσαι]’ from
Paul concerning ‘the sect’ of Christianity (28.22), even though their reaction is split (28.24-25). And
while Paul’s final ‘word’ (28.25) that the Gentiles ‘will listen [άκούσονται]’ (28.28) may suggest
universal deafness among Jewish listeners, Paul continues to welcome ‘all [πάντας]’ who come to
him while he evangelizes in prison (28.30-31). Overall, a trajectory can be traced regarding Jewish
and Gentile ‘listening’ in Acts, but the point remains that the posture of listening itself remains key.
Indeed, for Luke, the most important characteristic of following Jesus involves forming a habitus
of hearing. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus distinctly characterizes discipleship as ‘hearing and doing God’s
word’ (Lk. 8.15, 21; 11.28), and both Jesus and God command followers to ‘listen’ (Lk. 8.8; 9.35,
44; 14.35; 16.29, 31; 18.6). Whereas Luke depicts seeing in terms of agency, he depicts hearing in
terms of receptivity, as when Jesus relates the receptivity (or lack thereof) of the word among the
various types of soil in the parable of the sower (Lk. 8.4-15) or when he says, ‘Let these words sink
into your ears!’ (Lk. 9.44; cf. 4.21; 7.1). In Acts, Jesus’ followers take up this mantle concerning the
importance of receptivity and hearing the divine. Peter and John, for instance, differentiate between
those who listen to God versus those they perceive as opposing God, saying, ‘if it is righteous
before God for us to listen [άκούειν] to you [the Jewish religious leaders] rather than to God, you
must judge’ (Acts 4.19). Peter also stresses the import of hearing Jesus when he quotes Moses to the
Jews in Jerusalem: ‘you must listen [άκούσεσθε] to all that he [i.e., Jesus] tells you ... everyone who
does not listen [μή άκούσ^] to that prophet will be utterly rooted out’ (Acts 3.22-23; cf. Deut. 18.15-
20). For Luke, Jewish scripture points to Jesus, and perceiving this truth rests on receptivity to the
word. Those ‘with ears to hear’ (Lk. 8.8; 14.35) will recognize that Jesus is the one about whom the
scriptures foretold (e.g., Lk. 24.25-27, 44-47). Indeed, in both of Luke’s volumes, listening - or
attuning our ears - is the key disposition of discipleship.
Conclusion
In this article, we have witnessed that both visual and verbal imagery play a key role throughout the
book of Acts. Seeing and hearing are often paired together, and both senses play a significant role in
perceiving God. We have also witnessed, however, that Luke tends to favor the verbal, both in terms
of hearing and speaking God’s word. Even with the manifold visions in Acts, scenes that ostensibly
focus on the eye, God’s word remains paramount. Stephen’s vision in Acts 7 particularly
exemplifies this focus on the verbal when situated within its narrative context. Stephen sees his
vision after delivering a speech in which he recounts Moses’ reception of the Law, critiques idolatry,
and accuses his hearers of having ‘uncircumcised ears’. Moreover, Stephen delivers the speech
because certain Jewish instigators could not withstand his words and publicly level false
accusations against him. After his speech, Stephen’s audience still does not hear him, and when
Stephen receives divine confirmation of his words through a vision and relates this vision, the
crowd responds by covering their ears and killing Stephen.
When looking at Acts as a whole, Stephen’s voice and vision in Acts 7 reflect larger patterns
concerning the verbal and visual in Acts. As we find in Stephen’s story, testimony - or speaking
God’s word - is coupled with sight in Acts: testimony is often based on sight, confirmed by signs,
and can lead to spectacle. All three of these visual elements - whether they function as basis,
confirmation or result - revolve around the central facet of speaking God’s word. Speeches
comprise a significant portion of Acts, and while visions also feature prominently in Acts, they are
primarily auditory visions in which divine speech demands a response. Indeed, the book of Acts in
its entirety narrates the expansion of God’s word as it goes forth from Jerusalem to the ends of the
earth and the varied responses to this word along the way. God’s ‘word’ even takes on the
characteristics of an independent agent, and response to this word is repeatedly split: some receive
the word, and others reject it. In light of Jewish rejection, God’s own light is increasingly extended
to the Gentiles, and many (though not all!) Gentiles demonstrate receptivity to the word.
Stephen’s story also points to the critique of idolatry in Acts, a note first sounded in Acts 7, but
played throughout the remaining narrative. With this condemnation of idolatry, we find the sharpest
critique of visual perception in Acts. Visual representations of the divine are not acceptable because
humans cannot look upon God, as Moses discovered in the wilderness of Sinai. Humans instead are
to listen to God, either by listening to God’s chosen representatives (such as Moses) or to scripture
(especially the Law and the prophets). Humans are also to listen directly to God’s voice when it
dramatically intervenes into the earthly sphere, as it does throughout both of Luke’s volumes. In
such instances, God can be synesthetically experienced since God’s voice often manifests itself in a
vision, but even here, God remains one who is primarily heard. According to Luke, cultivating such
hearing is the disposition of discipleship and signifies receptivity to the divine.
In his narration of God’s word going out into the world, Luke evinces a logocentric orientation
that is characteristic of many tradents within Judaism. Why, then, does Luke also include visual
imagery to the degree that he does? There are several possibilities in response to this question. First,
Luke’s reliance on sight imagery - and imagery related to light - derives directly from Jewish
scripture, especially Isaiah. Luke’s dependence on Isaiah - to the point where it affects even the
structure of Acts - has been well established, and the extension of light to the Gentiles and visual
openness are prominent themes within Isaiah. Luke’s tendency to base proclamation on visual
evidence is also consonant with a key theme that runs throughout Jewish scripture (Avrahami 2012:
238-48). Secondly, Luke, though mainly reliant on Jewish scripture, is still influenced by the
visuality of his surrounding culture. This influence is most likely apparent in Luke’s depiction of
testimony leading to spectacle. Luke’s identification of Jesus’ crucifixion as a ‘spectacle’ and the
pattern of persecution that Jesus’ persecution establishes in Acts finds parallel in Greco-Roman
accounts of public executions, as well as Jewish martyrological texts. Thus while Luke is sharply
critical of Greek culture in his depiction of idolatry, he may also reflect the influence of Greek
culture in his depiction of persecution.
Thirdly, and finally, Luke’s reliance on sight imagery may also be due to Luke’s conviction that
God’s action in Jesus has introduced something new; namely, that God can be seen in Jesus. Like
God, Jesus sees and hears God’s people. As ‘Lord’ (κύριος), Jesus also enables sight and takes away
sight; he enables speech and hearing and takes away speech and hearing. Jesus, however, also
becomes the object of sight. Jesus can see us, but we can also look back and see Jesus. While on
earth, Jesus’ presence points to an immediacy between humans and the divine - a connection
between the subject and object of sight - that was not evident in the same way before. Some
scriptural - and later rabbinic - texts posit a reciprocal, visual exchange between God and the people
of Israel, but in these instances, ‘seeing’ God is not the same as seeing God in human flesh. This
newfound ability to see God in Jesus may in part explain Luke’s tendency, for example, to predicate
speech on sight. A follower who actually saw Jesus must take Judas’s place, thus providing
continuity for those of us today who cannot ‘see’ Jesus in the same way. After the ascension, Jesus -
like God - is experienced in the earthly realm as both a ‘voice’ (φωνή) and ‘light’ (φως), but the
main way Jesus is now ‘seen’ is through speech: followers must proclaim Jesus as God’s Word.
Thus while Luke does not promulgate a preference for sight as found among many of his Greek
contemporaries, his incorporation of the visual alongside the verbal may very well reflect a
grappling with the paradox of the incarnation. As one who could be seen but is now primarily heard,
Jesus points to the tension within first-century Jewish Christianity regarding the implications of the
Word made flesh. For followers of ‘the Word’, Jesus embodies this sensory, epistemological tension
by his very existence. Indeed, for such followers, Jesus is both seen and heard; he is both Word and
Light.