Acts 6:8 - 7:60. Stephen's defence: b)  The law

The false witnesses had accused Stephen of two blasphemies, namely of `speaking against this holy place and against the law' (6:13). In response to both accusations he developed a similar defence, namely that in each area he was more biblical than they. That is, the Old Testament Scriptures laid less emphasis on the temple, and more emphasis on the law, than they did. We have followed his argument in relation to the temple; now in relation to the law he turns the tables on his judges. It is not he, he maintains, who has shown a disregard for the law, but they, like their fathers before them. The accused assumes the role of the accuser.     

This theme has already been sketched in the earlier part of Stephen's speech. His respect for Moses and the law was unambiguous. His acknowledgement of Moses' divine vocation has been plain beyond question. Moses' birth and early education were superintended by God (20-22). His call came direct from God, who spoke to him out of the burning bush (31-32). His appointment as Israel's ruler and deliverer was made `by God himself' (35), and from the same God `he received living words' to pass on to the people (38). The shocking disrespect which Moses received, then, came not from Stephen but from the Israelites themselves. It was they who failed to recognize him as their heaven-sent deliverer (25), who `pushed Moses aside' (27), who rejected his leadership (35), and who in the desert `refused to obey him'; instead in their hearts they turned back to Egypt and became idolaters (39ff). It was similar with the prophets. Stephen quoted two of them with approval (Amos in verses 42-43, and Isaiah in verses 48-50), but in both citations the prophets were rebuking Israel.

So now, having exposed Israel's past unfaithfulness to the law and the prophets, Stephen went on to accuse his judges of the same sin.        

We notice how Stephen boldly called the Sanhedrin *stiff-necked*, meaning stubborn, an epithet which both Moses and the prophets had applied to Israel. (eg. Ex.32:9; 33:3,5; 34:9; Dt.9:6, 13: 10:16; 31:27; 2Ch.30:8; Je.17:23). And though they insisted on bodily circumcision, he described them as having *uncircumcised hearts and ears*, another expression which was common to Moses and the prophets (eg. Lv.26:41; Dt.10:16; 30:6; Je.6:10; 9:26; Ezk.44:7) and which implied that they were `heathen still at heart and deaf to the truth' (NEB). Indeed, in their wilful rejection of God's word, he said to them; *you are just like your fathers* (51).

Pressing home his indictment in greater detail, Stephen declared them guilty of sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Messiah and the law. First, *you always resist the Holy Spirit* (51) by rejecting his appeals. Secondly, whereas their fathers had persecuted every prophet (cf.Lk.6:23; 11:49ff; 13:34), and even *killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One*, they had been worse, for they had *betrayed and murdered him* whom the prophets had predicted (52). Thirdly, although they had been specially privileged to receive the law through the mediation of angels, they had *not obeyed it* (53).

Stephen's speech was not so much a self-defence as a testimony to Christ. His main theme was positive, that Jesus the Messiah had come to replace the temple and fulfil the law, which both bore witness to him. As Calvin put it, `No harm can be done to the temple and the law, when Christ is openly established as the end and truth of both'.

Acts 7:54-60.  Stephen is stoned.

Stephen was ready to be the first true *martys*, who sealed his testimony with his blood. His death was full of Christ. Luke records three further sentences which he spoke, the first of which referred to Christ, while the remaining two were addressed to Christ.

First, when the Sanhedrin, infuriated by his accusations, ground their teeth at him (54), snarling like wild animals, Stephen, filled with the Spirit, had a vision of the glory of God (55), and cried out: `*look,...I see the heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God*' (56). Several guesses have been made why Jesus was *standing* (repeated in verses 55 and 56), instead of sitting (Ps.110:1; cf.Lk.22:69; Acts 2:34-35), at God's right hand. It may have been that the son of man, who in Daniel's vision (Dn.7:13-14) was led into the presence of God, stood before him to receive authority and power. But it seems likely that Christ's standing related more directly to Stephen, and that he stood up either as his heavenly advocate or to welcome his first martyr. As F.F.Bruce has put it, `Stephen has been confessing Christ before men, and now he sees Christ confessing his servant before God.'

Unwilling to listen to Stephen's testimony to the exaltation of Jesus, the Council both *covered their ears* and sought to drown his voice by their yelling. Worse, they were determined to silence him. So they *rushed at him (57), dragged him out of the city and began to stone him* (58a). Since the Romans had taken away the Jew's right of capital punishment (Jn.18:31), it seems that Stephen's stoning was more a mob lynching than an official execution. Yet it had a small semblance of justice, since according to the law (Dt.17:7), the first to begin stoning the condemned person must be `the witnesses', which means his accusers, whether in Stephen's case these were the false witnesses of 6:13 or Sanhedrin members. At all events, they *laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul* (58b), an experience he never forgot (22:20). Thus discreetly does Luke introduce into his narrative the man who is soon to dominate it.

It was during his actual stoning that Stephen uttered his second sentence: `*Lord Jesus, receive my spirit*' (59). His prayer was similar to that which Luke recorded Jesus as praying just before he died. `Father into your hands I commit my spirit' (Lk.23:46). Yet this was not to be Stephen's last word. He spoke a third sentence when *he fell on his knees*. He *cried out, `Lord, do not hold this sin against them'* (60a). It was reminiscent of the first word from the cross which Luke has recorded, `Father, forgive them , for they do not know what they are doing.' (Lk.23:34). Whether it was Stephen who deliberately imitated his Master, or whether, it was Luke who observed and highlighted the fact, there are several parallels between the death of Jesus and the death of Stephen. In both cases false witnesses were produced and the charge was one of blasphemy. In both cases too the execution was accompanied by two prayers, as each prayed for forgiveness of his executioners and for the reception of his spirit as he died. Thus did the disciple - whether consciously or unconsciously - reflect his Master. The only difference was that Jesus addressed his prayers to the Father, while Stephen addressed them to Jesus, calling him `Lord' and putting him on a level with God.

Luke concludes his story with a dramatic contrast between Stephen and Saul. Stephen *fell asleep* (60b), which Bengel called `a mournful but sweet word and F.F.Bruce `an unexpectedly beautiful and peaceful description of so brutal a death'. By contrast, *Saul was there, giving approval to his death* (8:1a). We shall return later to Stephen's influence on Saul. At this stage it is enough to note how brightly Stephen's tranquil faith shines against the dark background of Saul's murderous anger (8:1,3). 

Conclus ion.

What interests many people most about Stephen is that he was the first Christian martyr. Luke's main concern lies elsewhere, however. He emphasizes the vital role Stephen played in the development of the world-wide Christian mission through both his teaching and his death.

Stephen's teaching, misunderstood as `blasphemy' against the temple and the law, was that Jesus (as he himself had claimed) was the fulfilment of both. Already in the Old Testament God was tied to his people, wherever they were, not to buildings. So now Jesus is ready to accompany his people wherever they go. When soon Paul and Barnabas set out into the unknown on their first missionary journey, they will find (as Abraham, Joseph and Moses had found before them) that God is with them. That is exactly what they reported on their return (14:27; 15:12). Indeed, this assurance is indispensable to mission. Change is painful to us all, especially when it affects our cherished buildings and customs, and we should not seek change merely for the sake of change. Yet true Christian radicalism is open to change. It knows that God has bound himself to his church (promising that he will never leave it) and to his word (promising that it will never pass away). But God's church means people not buildings, and God's word means Scripture not traditions. So long as these essentials are preserved, the buildings and the traditions can if necessary go. We must not allow them to imprison the living God or to impede his mission to the world.

Stephen's martyrdom supplemented the influence of his teaching. Not only did it deeply impress Saul of Tarsus, and contribute to his conversion which led to his becoming the apostle to the Gentiles, but it also occasioned `a great persecution' which led to the scattering of the disciples `throughout Judea and Samaria' (8:1b).

The church was shocked, even stunned, by the martyrdom of Stephen and by the violent opposition which followed. But, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see how God's providence used Stephen's testimony, in word and deed, through life and death, to promote the church's mission. 

Philip the Evangelist. (Acts 8:1- 40). 

Luke seems to have regarded Stephen and Philip as a pair. Both men belonged to the Seven, and so had social responsibilities in the Jerusalem church (6:5). Yet both were also preaching evangelists (6:10; 8:5), and both performed public signs and wonders (6:8; 8:6). In addition, Luke saw the ministry of both men as helping to pave the way for the Gentile mission. Stephen's contribution lay in his teaching about the temple, the law and the Christ, and in the effects of his martyrdom, while Philip's lay in his bold evangelization of the Samaritans and of an Ethiopian leader. For the Jews regarded the Samaritans as heretical outsiders and Ethiopia as `the extreme boundary of the habitable world in the hot south'

A notable feature of this chapter is the currency it gives to two distinctively Christian words for evangelism. Luke has already described the apostles as bearing witness to Christ, announcing (*katangellein*, 4:2) their message, devoting themselves to the ministry of the word of God, and teaching the people. But now he introduces the verb *kerysso* (`to herald') in relation to Philip's proclamation of Christ(5), and popularizes the verb *euangelizo* (`to bring good news'). The latter he has used once before (5:42), but in this chapter it occurs five times. Twice the object of the verb is the towns or villages evangelized (25,40), while the other three times the object is the message itself, namely the good news of `the word' (4), of `the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' (12), and simply of `Jesus' (35). This is a salutary reminder that there can be no evangelism without the evangel, and that Christian evangelism presupposes the good news of Jesus Christ. Effective evangelism becomes possible only when the church recovers both the biblical gospel and the joyful confidence in its truth, relevance and power.

In the first four verses Luke sets the scene for the evangelistic exploits of Philip which he is about to narrate, beginning with this statement: *And Saul was there* (at Stephen's martyrdom), *giving approval to his death* (1a). Luke appears to be drawing attention to a threefold chain of cause and effect.

First, Stephen's martyrdom brought *a great persecution...against the church at Jerusalem*. It began *on that day*, the day of Stephen's death, and it *broke out* with the ferocity of a sudden storm (1b). True, not every inhabitant of the city was in opposition, for there were *godly men* (probably pious Jews rather than believers) who *buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him* (2), deploring the injustice of his death. They will have taken a considerable personal risk by thus identifying with Stephen. In contrast, Saul, who had approved of Stephen's stoning (1a, cf.22:20), now *began to destroy the church* (3a). The verb *lumaino* expresses `a brutal and sadistic cruelty'. Making a *house to house* search for believers, *he dragged off men and women and put them in prison* (3b). Not only did he not spare the women, but he did not stop short of seeking - and securing - his victim's death (9:1; 22:4; 26:10). Saul of Tarsus had blood on his hands, for several others followed Stephen into martyrdom.

Secondly, the great persecution led to a great dispersion: *all except the apostles were scattered through Judea and Samaria* (1c). Luke remembers how the risen Lord commanded his followers to be his witnesses `in all Judea and Samaria' (1:8), as well as in Jerusalem; now he shows how the commission was fulfilled as a result of persecution. We are very familiar with the Jewish diaspora, which had led to the propagation of Judaism; `this was the beginning of the Dispersion of the New Israel', which led to the dissemination of the gospel. Stephen's speech had been truly prophetic. Jerusalem and the temple now begin to fade from view, as Christ calls his people out and accompanies them. No blame is attached to the apostles for staying behind. Jerusalem would still for a while be the headquarters of the new Christian community, and they evidently saw it as their duty to remain there. Besides, it would have been dangerous for them to leave, even if the persecution was directed more against `Hellenists' like Stephen than against Hebraists' like them.

Thirdly, if Stephen's martyrdom led to persecution, and the persecution to the dispersion, the dispersion now resulted in wide-spread evangelism. the scattering of the Christians was followed by the scattering of the good seed of the gospel. For *those who had been scattered*, as they fled, far from going into hiding, or even maintaining a prudential silence, *preached the word wherever they went* (4). Up to this point it was the apostles who had given the lead in evangelism, in defiance of the Sanhedrin's ban, violence and threats; now, however, as the apostles stayed in Jerusalem it was the generality of believers who took up the evangelistic task. Not that they all became `preachers' or `missionaries' as a full-time vocation. The statement that they `preached the word' is misleading; the Greek expression does not necessarily mean more than `shared the good news'. Philip was soon to preach to the Samaritan crowds (6); it is better to think of the other refugees as lay witnesses (`namely amateur missionaries').

What is plain is that the devil (who lurks behind all persecution of the church) over-reached himself. His attack had the opposite effect to what he intended. Instead of smothering the gospel, persecution succeeded only in spreading it. As Bengel comments ` the wind increases the flame'. An instructive modern parallel is what happened in 1949 in China when the National Government was defeated by the communists. Six hundred and thirty-seven China Inland Mission missionaries were obliged to leave. It seemed a total disaster. Yet within four years 286 of them had been redeployed in South-East Asia and Japan, while the national Christians in China, even under severe persecution, began to multiply and now total thirty or forty times the number they were when the missionaries left (the exact figures are not known).

Having set the scene in the first four verses of the chapter, Luke goes on to give us two examples of early Christian evangelism, in both of which Philip was the chief actor. He may have obtained the facts from the lips of Philip himself, for about twenty years later he stayed in his home in Caesarea (21:8).

Acts 8:5-25. 1). Philip the evangelist and a Samaritan city.

 It is hard for us to conceive the boldness of the step Philip took in preaching the gospel to the Samaritans. For the hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans had lasted a thousand years. It began with the break-up of the monarchy in the tenth century BC when ten tribes defected, making Samaria their capital, and only two tribes remained loyal to Jerusalem. It became steadily worse when Samaria was captured by Assyria in 722 BC, thousands of its inhabitants were deported, and the country was re-populated by foreigners. In the sixth century BC, when the Jews returned to their land, they refused the help of the Samaritans in the  rebuilding of the temple. Not till the fourth century BC, however, did the Samaritan schism harden, with the building of their rival temple on Mount Gerizim and their repudiation of all Old Testament Scripture except the Pentateuch. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews as hybrids in both race and religion, as both heretics and schismatics. John summed up the situation in his simple statement that `Jews do not associate with Samaritans' (Jn.4:9). Jesus' sympathy with them, however, is already apparent in Luke's Gospel (eg.Lk.9:52-56; 10:30-37; 17:11-19; cf. Jn.4). Now in Acts 8 Luke is obviously excited by the evangelism of the Samaritans and their incorporation in the Messianic community.

It is uncertain which city Philip evangelized, since some manuscripts read *a city in Samaria* (as NIV) and others `the city of Samaria'. The better attested reading has the definite article. in which case `the city' (presumably meaning `the capital city' or `the principal city') is likely to have been either the Old Testament town called `Samaria', which Herod the Great had renamed  `Sebastos' in honour of the emperor Augustus, or the ancient Shechem, which by then was called `Neapolis' and is now `Nablus'. On the other hand, *a city in* (the province of) *Samaria* may be correct, since neither in this verse nor in verse 25 does Luke seem concerned to identity the city or villages in question.     Luke's concern is rather to tell us what happened in the city. He unfolds the story in five stages. 

a), Philip evangelizes the city (8:5-8).

The evangelist both *proclaimed the Christ* to the Samaritans (5), since they too were expecting a Messiah (cf. Jn. 4:25), and performed *miraculous signs* (6), exorcizing *evil spirits*, which uttered wild *shrieks* as they left their victims, and healing *many paralytics and cripples* (7). Some think of these miracles as special to Philip; others think of them as a norm for evangelism. What is certain is that, since neither Stephen nor Philip was an apostle, Scripture does not warrant a rigid restriction on miracles to the apostles. At any rate, hearing Philip's message and seeing his signs, *the crowds...all paid close attention to what he said* (6), and the combination of salvation and healing brought *great joy* to the city (8). 

b). Simon Magus professes faith (8:9-13)

*For some time* before Philip arrived in the city, it had been under a very different influence. *A man named Simon had practised sorcery in the city*. He had *amazed all the people of Samaria*, even in the region beyond the city, not only by his magic arts (11) but also by his extravagant claims (9). For *he boasted that he was someone great*, even `momentous' (JB). And *all the people*, `eminent citizens and ordinary people alike' (JB),who seem to have been a gullible group, actually stated that *this man is the divine power known as the Great Power* (10). Commentators are not agreed about the meaning of this phrase. Haenchen considers it clear `that "the great power" was a Samaritan designation for the supreme deity', and that `Simon declared that this deity had come to earth in his person for the redemption of men'. Others think it more probable that Simon regarded himself, and came to be regarded, as some kind of emanation or representative of the divine being. Certainly in the middle of the second century Justin Martyr, who himself came from Samaria, described `a Samaritan, Simon', who `did many acts of magic', so that `he was considered a god' and was worshipped not only by `almost all the Samaritans' but even by some in Rome who erected a statue in his honour. Towards the end of the second century Irenaeus represented him as both `glorified by man as if he were "a god"' and as the author of `all sorts of heresies', while by the third century he had come to be seen as the originator of Gnosticism and the arch-enemy of the apostle Peter. But this is more romance than history.

Now, however, in Samaria, Simon found himself challenged by Philip. It is not just Philip's miracles rivalled by Simon's magic. It is rather that, whereas Simon boasted of himself, Philip *preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ* (12). The people first `paid close attention to what he said' (6a), and then *believed Philip*. Luke seems to mean that they believed Philip's gospel, in other words were converted, for they then *were baptised, both men and women* (12b). It is less clear what Luke intends us to understand by his next statement that *Simon himself believed and was baptised and followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw* (13), He who had amazed others was himself now amazed. There is no need to suppose that he was only pretending to believe. Nor, on the other hand, did he exercise saving faith, for Peter was later to declare that his heart was `not right before God' (21). Calvin suggests that we should seek `some middle position between faith and mere pretence'. Probably `the sorcerer believed to all appearances as the rest did; he professed belief, became a convert in the view of others, and in the customary way, by submitting to the rite of baptism'. New Testament language does not always distinguish between believing and professing to believe.  

Next: Acts 8:14-17. c) The apostles send Peter and John.