The “priests” mentioned in Acts 6.7 are a particularly interesting detail of Luke’s account:
“The word of God spread more and more, the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great company of priests were obedient to the faith.”
This remark shows that the Gospel was not only reaching the people, but was also beginning to penetrate certain religious circles traditionally associated with the Temple.
Ordinary priests, not the leaders of the Temple
The Greek term used (hiereis) refers to priests in general, not to the chief priests or the members of the . We should therefore not imagine Caiaphas or the leading converting en masse. Luke habitually distinguishes the “chief priests” from the ordinary priests (Acts 4.1; Acts 5.17).
These were probably the many priests who carried out the daily service of the Temple.
A numerous class
In the first century, it is estimated that several thousand priests were divided into twenty-four priestly divisions (1 Chronicles 24.1-19). Most of them served at the Temple only a few weeks a year and lived the rest of the time a relatively modest life in Jerusalem or in the towns of Judea.
Many of them did not belong to the priestly aristocracy that surrounded the high priest. They could therefore be more open to the message of the apostles.
Privileged witnesses
These priests were particularly well placed to observe what was happening:
- they saw daily the crowds that gathered at the Temple;
- they heard the preaching of the apostles;
- they were witnesses of the miracles performed (Acts 5.12-16);
- they knew the Scriptures and the sacrifices.
They could thus more easily grasp the meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus proclaimed by the apostles.
A possible disappointment with the priestly aristocracy
It is possible that some priests were shocked by the role the chief priests played in the condemnation of Jesus (Matthew 26.57-68) and by the hostility shown toward the apostles (Acts 5.17-18). This opposition between the priestly hierarchy and the ordinary priests might explain why Luke specifies that it was priests who were converting, and not the leaders of the people.
Why does Luke stress this fact?
This remark is probably further proof of the power of the apostolic witness. After having reached:
- the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Acts 2.41);
- many men and women (Acts 5.14);
the Gospel was now reaching members of the priesthood itself.
There is perhaps also a certain irony in this observation. While the chief priests were striving to stifle Christianity, many priests under their authority were recognizing Jesus as the Messiah.
An interesting historical remark
Several Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, saw in this conversion of many priests the fulfillment of the prophecy that even those entrusted with the ancient sacrifices would recognize the perfect sacrifice of Christ.
Conclusion
The “priests” of Acts 6.7 were probably ordinary Temple priests, belonging to the various priestly divisions, and not the chief priests or the leading members of the . Daily witnesses of the religious life of Jerusalem and familiar with the Scriptures, they were particularly well placed to understand the scope of the apostolic message. Their conversion in large numbers is one of the most remarkable signs of the expansion of Christianity during the first months of the nascent Church.