Click Here to see Lesson 6 Photos

Click Here to return to CBS Home Page

Stephen

Last week we were introduced to Stephen, the church’s first "chief deacon": "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5) . . . "full of God's grace and power (who) did great wonders and miraculous signs" (Acts 6:8). To put him into context, let's recall last week's discussion about the difference between "Hebraic Jews" and "Grecian Jews."

"Hebraic Jews" were Jews living in the land we now call Israel (or Palestine). Their common language was Aramaic, and their population was large enough that many lived in "Jews only" villages, where they practiced faithful Judaism—even under pagan Roman rule. Jesus and all His apostles were "Hebraic Jews" from Jewish villages.

"Grecian Jews" were Jews living in the Greco-Roman areas of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc. Their common language was Greek, and—like Jews in modern America—they were a relatively small percentage of the population, and hence were continually in contact with Gentile neighbors. Most of these Jews tended to more or less assimilate to this environment, and adopted some of the culture of their Gentile neighbors. But by contrast, some of these Jews reacted against Greco-Roman culture and became extremely devoted to Judaism.

The next question is: since Grecian Jews, by definition, live outside Israel, why are lots of them living in Jerusalem—and we know lots of them are there, because they have their own synagogues. One big reason is that Jerusalem is where the great rabbis were, and devout Grecian Jews came to study with them . . . like in modern times a friend of mine sent his daughter to Jerusalem to study to be a rabbi, feeling she would get a better Jewish education there than at Hebrew Union. It's easy to understand that many Grecian Jews who chose to study in Jerusalem might be especially zealous in their faith . . . like Saul of Tarsus, whom we meet at the conclusion of this lesson; he studied under Gamaliel.

Let's also recall the basic message being preached by the followers of Jesus at this time: that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the fulfillment of God's promise—in Jewish prophesy—to provide a savior for the Jews. There is substantial, concrete evidence that Jesus meets all the criteria to be the Messiah, yet not all the Jews in Jerusalem look at the evidence and believe Jesus is the Messiah . . . some see the evidence but refuse to believe.

So, where does Stephen fall into this picture? We learned last week he was a Grecian Jew. We learn this week that he is one of those really devout Grecian Jews—an ardent student of the scriptures—who has become a passionate follower of Jesus. Presumably, he has seen the evidence, compared it with scripture, utilized his God-given powers of logic and reasoning, and come to realize it proves Jesus is the Messiah. Stephen reaches this conclusion as a devout Jew—that's important. He sees Jesus as the fulfillment of Judaism, not the founder of a new religion. So, with the same fervent Judaism that first brought him to Jerusalem, Stephen forcefully preaches Jesus as the Messiah to his fellow Jews . . . he passionately argues this from Jewish scripture.

Stephen's strongest opponents are fellow Grecian Jews . . . from "Cyrene and Alexandria" in Egypt and from "Cilicia and Asia" (Acts 6:9) in Turkey, who attended what was called the "Synagogue of the Freedmen." This may have been the synagogue Stephen himself regularly attended; moreover, since Tarsus is in Cilicia, it's possible Saul also attended this synagogue and was one of Stephen's opponents. These opponents are also devout Jews, knowledgeable in scripture. The problem is the scriptural evidence pointing to Jesus as the Messiah is so overwhelming, that Stephen's opponents "could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke" (Acts 6:10). The truth is, Stephen's opponents only basis for argument is disbelief . . . but Stephen thinks he can make them believers by overwhelming them with evidence and logic, so he continues to reason with them. But Stephen’s irrefutable logic does not make them believe . . . it just makes them mad.

So they try to get rid of Stephen. They discuss this with prominent members of the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:12), then arrange some false witnesses, and bring Stephen before the Sanhedrin accused of "blasphemy against Moses and against God" (Acts 6:11) . . . "speaking against (the temple) and against the law (of Moses)" saying "Jesus of Nazareth will destroy (the temple) and change the customs Moses handed down" (Acts 6:13-14). The charge of destroying the temple is, interestingly, the very same charge false witnesses made against Jesus some weeks earlier (Matt 26:61, Mark 14:58)—which is one reason I believe the Sanhedrin is behind all this.

Stephen remains serene and peaceful—"his face was like the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15)—while false witnesses testify against him. Why does Luke make this comment? I think it's because Stephen was such an intense personality, who raised his voice as he argued passionately with fellow Jews . . . like many Jewish friends of mine do. Stephen’s accusers and the Sanhedrin probably did not expect such composure; they expected him to make a scene and attack the false witnesses. Yet that was the power of the Holy Spirit, which gave Stephen what he needed when he needed it. Someone who looked like an angel must be treated with respect.

Then Stephen stands up in his own defense. His opponents may not expect the argument he advances. And it makes little sense to us either . . . unless we remember the charges against Stephen are "blasphemy" (Acts 6:11) . . . "speaking against (the temple) and against the law (of Moses)" (Acts 6:13-14). His defense addresses each points . . . in a way that seems directed toward proving his Jewishness—and by implication, the Jewishness of his fellow Christians.

Stephen starts by giving a thumbnail sketch of Jewish history, beginning with Abraham, and including the stories of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph . . . then Moses. He constructs the story of Moses to emphasize that although he was the first "savior" of Israel, he did it despite the opposition of his people. For instance, Stephen says, "Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not" (Acts 7:25). And as a result, Moses was forced to flee Egypt as a young man of 40. And after Moses returned to Egypt, his people "rejected (him) with the words, `Who made you ruler and judge?'"(Acts 7:35). And even after Moses led the people out of slavery in Egypt, Stephen points out that "our fathers refused to obey (Moses). Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt" (Acts 7:39).

Stephen devotes only a line or two to Jewish history after Moses . . . but his point seems to be—and I paraphrase—our Jewish forefathers ignored the law of Moses so consistently that, 600 years ago, God sent them into exile in Babylon. How can you accuse me of opposing the law of Moses? The facts are, our forefathers flagrantly ignored the law of Moses for 1500 years.

Then Stephen turns his attention to the temple . . . which the Jews believe contains the "presence of God" He again starts at the beginning, with the tabernacle: the tent of meeting in which God’s presence dwelt during the Exodus. Joshua brought the tabernacle into Israel, and David set it up in Jerusalem. Only then was a temple built as a permanent house for God’s presence by Solomon, David's son and successor—and that temple was destroyed by the Babylonians just before the exile. The point Stephen seems to be making is that in 2000 years of Jewish history, there has been a temple for less than half that time. There was no temple when God gave the law to Moses, and there was no temple during the Babylonian exile; yet God was still with them. So if God now has a different plan of worship, centered on Jesus the Messiah rather than the temple . . . that's not necessarily inconsistent with Jewish history.

Then Stephen undergoes a quick change from mild-mannered angel to mighty SuperStephen:

Cutting through the invective, what's he really saying here?

• When Stephen calls them "stiff-necked," he is quoting Old Testament prophets, who used the term "stiff-necked" 18 times about the Jews before the Babylonian exile.
• When he refers to uncircumcised hearts and ears, he is saying that although these people have the external signs of following the law of Moses, they don't have the law in their hearts; they follow the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. (This is the same charge Jesus made against them.)
• When Stephen says, "You always resist the Holy Spirit," he refers to that fact that the Jews believe the prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Stephen makes this clear when he reminds the Jews that their forefathers persecuted all the prophets—including the prophets who predicted the Messiah . . . even though all Jews now claim to believe in the Messiah.)
• And in conclusion he says, their decisive rejection of and disobedience to the law of Moses, occurred when they "betrayed and murdered" the Messiah, the fulfillment of the law of Moses!

It's easy to see why the Sanhedrin was so angry when Stephen finished!

A quick parenthetic point. Some of the things Stephen says—while not contrary to the bible—are not in the Bible . . . such as Abraham’s call in Ur, before he reached Haran, and the idea that "the law (of Moses) was put into effect through angels" (Acts 7:53). These statements reflect Jewish tradition.

The Sanhedrin has been accused of murdering the Messiah before . . . Peter and the apostles did it in last week’s lesson. Stephen is only telling them again. But it’s the next thing Stephen says that really seals his doom. Remember what Jesus said to the Sanhedrin . . . when he confirmed to Caiaphas that he was the Messiah:

Stephen says:

Son of Man is one of the Messianic titles. A few weeks ago Jesus said to the Sanhedrin: "I am the Messiah, and I will be at the right hand of God in heaven." Now Stephen says, "Jesus was the Messiah, and I see Him now at the right hand of God in heaven."

It is hard to imagine a more direct slap-in-the-face to the Sanhedrin. Stephen first reminded the Sanhedrin that their forefathers had persecuted and killed 1000 years of Jewish prophets, then he says Jesus' words to the Sanhedrin were prophesy . . . and he says this to the very people who had Jesus killed!

But on another level, this plays right into the hands of the Sanhedrin. They consider these words blasphemy. These words by Jesus had self-incriminated Him, and lead to his crucifixion. Similarly, these words by Stephen now self-incriminate him. Like one of those "hear-no-evil" monkeys, the Sanhedrin and their supporters cover their ears . . . and shout at the top of their lungs so they can't hear this blasphemy.

I think what happens next is a set-up. I think the Sanhedrin expected talk like this from Stephen. I think they had already arranged a "mob"—some suggest people from the Synagogue of the Freedmen—to kill Stephen in a way for which the Sanhedrin could claim "we had nothing to do with it." So, upon hearing this self-incriminating blasphemy—and on a signal from Caiaphas—the mob attacks. They can’t kill Stephen in the temple, so they drag him outside . . . outside the city wall. There they stone him to death in a way that directly involves neither the Sanhedrin nor the Romans.

And as Stephen is dying, he prays . . . to Jesus to receive his spirit, and to God to forgive his murderers. Stephen is the first in a long line of Christian "martyrs," who submitted to death, rather to deny Jesus.

"On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria" (Acts 8:1). That's one reason I believe the Sanhedrin was behind the stoning of Stephen . . . because the bible says they organized this persecution of Christians—and it began when Stephen died.

This is actually a good thing. Up until now, the Christians stayed in Jerusalem—as Jesus told them. But now they are forced scatter to Judea and Samaria—also as Jesus had told them . . . but they needed a little push. Hence begins phase 2 of Jesus’ instructions in Acts 1:8 about how to spread the gospel throughout the world.

We will close with an introduction to Saul—which we do, of course, because we all know he is the man who later became the apostle Paul.

Saul was present at the trial of Stephen. Why was he there? It’s all speculation. I don't think he was one of the "false witnesses" against Stephen; this would have broken a commandment, and Luke would have mentioned it. It is possible—as discussed earlier—that both Saul and Stephen regularly attended the Synagogue of the Freedmen and had argued with one another there . . . and that Saul was one of those who complained to the Sanhedrin about Stephen—perhaps even the "ringleader" of those who brought charges against Stephen. But the "why" is less important that the "what." Saul gave "approval to (Stephen's) death" (Acts 8:1); although he did not actually throw any stones, he actively supported Stephen's murderers by being custodian of their coats.

Then Saul became a leader in the persecution of Christians; he went "from house to house) to capture Christians who had not fled, and he "put them in prison" (Acts 8:2). Saul must have had the sanction of the Sanhedrin to do this; they were the only ones—besides the Romans—with authority to put people in jail.

Next week we talk about how the Christians who fled persecution spread the gospel to Samaria. Samaria is geographically close to Jerusalem, but religiously it is far, far away. We know Jews despised the Samaritans; they were only half-Jewish and (more important) had a separate religion which was only partially based on Judiasm. Neverthless, since the Samaritans believed in the Jewish Messiah, they were receptive to the "good news" of Jesus—just like the Samaritans of Sychar, who became some of the first believers in Jesus when He told the "woman at the well" he was the Messiah.