Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 6:8

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

8 15. Of Stephen’s Preaching, Arrest and Accusation

8. And Stephen, full of faith ] The best MSS. read grace.

and power ] i.e. of working miracles. He at least among the seven appears almost as largely gifted by the Holy Ghost, as were the twelve.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And Stephen – The remarkable death of this first Christian martyr, which soon occurred, gave occasion to the sacred writer to give a detailed account of his character, and of the causes which led to his death. Hitherto the opposition of the Jews had been confined to threats and imprisonment; but it was now to burst forth with furious rage and madness, that could be satisfied only with blood. This was the first in a series of persecutions against Christians which filled the church with blood, and which closed the lives of thousands, perhaps a million, in the great work of establishing the gospel on the earth.

Full of faith – Full of confidence in God, or trusting entirely to his promises. See the notes on Mar 16:16.

And power – The power which was evinced in working miracles.

Wonders – This is one of the words commonly used in the New Testament to denote miracles.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 6:8-15

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

The last first

I. The points in which Stephen was last.

1. His position was entirely subordinate. The deacons were appointed to help the apostles in the lower part of their functions, and even this they did not presume to do without delegation from the apostles. We may imagine, then, the apostles retiring after the ordination to give themselves without distraction to their spiritual exercises. But it was with them as with Moses of old. God took of the Spirit which was upon them and put it on those who were to bear the burden of the people with them. Stephen, etc., became the Eldad and Medad of the New Testament. Nay, Stephen was an Elisha, upon whom a double portion of their spirit rested.

2. Stephen had probably never seen our Lord, but was in all likelihood a pentecostal convert. Otherwise how could such a man have missed nomination to the vacant apostleship? But it pleased the Lord to illustrate in him that the knowledge of Christ after the Spirit is the one requirement for sanctity. Whom having not seen, ye love.

3. The apostles had forsaken all to follow Christ, but it nowhere appears that Stephen had gone through similar hardships. His fiery trials blazed out upon him all at once, and the language of our Lord concerning the late-called labourers adapts itself with nicety in his case. He could not be said to have borne the burden and heat of the day. So we learn that God has varieties of trial, and applies them to the different characters of His servants. For Peter there is a long, wearing warfare; for John a wearisome, desolate waiting; for Stephen the letting loose upon him at the opening of his career all the hounds of hell in one fell pack. Us, perhaps, He subjects only to those little crosses which form the burden of daily life. But we must consider that in crosses, as well as comforts, God chooses what is best for us. It is possible to reach a great height of sanctity by submitting quietly and lovingly to ordinary trials.

II. The points in which he became first.

1. He seems to have outstripped the apostles in spiritual intelligence, in appreciation of the breadth, comprehensiveness, and spirituality of the Divine plans. He was the morning star who ushered in the dawn of St. Pauls ministry. It is evident that the theology of the one was that of the other. St. Peter clung long to Jewish prejudices, and we have no reason to suppose that the other apostles were further advanced.

2. In zeal for his Masters honour, and devotion to his Masters cause, Stephen appears to have outstripped his contemporaries. Peter had denied his Lord, and long after, at Antioch, showed that he was not entirely emancipated from moral cowardice. But Stephen from first to last was as bold as a lion.

3. According to the omen conveyed in his name (a crown), he was the first to wear the crown of martyrdom. For most of the apostles it was also in reserve, but when they reached paradise they found Stephen already crowned. The labourer called at the eleventh hour had received his wages before those called in the morning.

4. In the brilliancy and number of his miracles Stephen rivalled if he did not outstrip the apostles (verse 8).

Lessons:

1. We should see contentedly and thankfully many alterations made in the old platform of religious thought. These are days of progress, and old-fashioned and high-principled people are made very sore by novelties. In this adherence to old ways and thoughts there is danger, while at the same time there is a safeguard. Still it is very necessary that sound conservatism does not degenerate into bigotry. Not every new idea and practice turned up by the spade of modern inquiry is bad. And as for keeping the platform of popular theology what it was half a century ago, it is impossible. So we can imagine our early Christians jealous for Christs apostles, saying, I do not like this Stephen: he carries matters too far; his teaching about the temple is audacious. Yet to Stephens view the apostles came round in time.

2. It may be a stimulus to our will in the pursuit of holiness to remember that our last shall be first. Hitherto, maybe, we have made little, if any, proficiency in religion. But if now we are willing to redeem the time, we may advance. The blood and grace of Christ are forces as fresh as ever. (Dean Goulburn.)

Stephens miracles and controversies

It is observable that no express mention is made of his performance of deacons functions. He shot ahead of his position, and is only known as the brave champion and first martyr of the cause of Christ. Not that we must infer that he was neglectful of the duties of his calling. His routine of daily duty needed not recording.

I. His miracles. Observe how carefully we are guarded against the supposition that he was a mere wonder worker. The historian does not merely record the miracles, but tells us of the secret of them, Stephen, full of faith, etc. The man who acts in faith, whether he works a miracle or only achieves some great enterprise for Christ, simply lays hold of the power of God. So in the triumphs of grace. If I win a victory over a besetting sin, or am brought out unharmed from temptation, it is not in my own strength. The Bible knows nothing of inherent strength. The first element of all power is self-distrust. The vine branch has no sap, and consequently no power of fructification of its own; the sap must be sent up from the stem. A little child is quite incompetent to a long walk; but if in confessed impotence it throws itself into his fathers arms, he will entry it through. Sanctification, in its source and efficient cause, is no more inherent than justification. In the Lord have I righteousness and strength.

II. His controversies. It was said that in Jerusalem there were 480 synagogues. Among these several would be appropriated to Hellenistic Jews of whom Stephen was probably one, and thus his early associations as well as his office would bring him in contact with the members of these synagogues. It is worth noting that among his opponents were representatives of each of the three continents then known. First that of the Libertines or freedmen, i.e., Jews whose ancestors had been carried captive to Rome by Pompey and others, and had there, in process of time, been emancipated. Many of them would migrate to Jerusalem, and found this synagogue representing the Italian Jews. Cyrene and Alexandria were cities of North Africa. In the former the Jews were a fourth of the population. It was a Cyrenian Jew who bore our Lords cross, and another joined in laying hands on Paul. In Alexandria two out of its five districts were inhabited by Jews. These African Hebrews would have their representatives in the holy city, who would build their own church and have their own congregation. The Asiatic opponents of Stephen would be furnished by the representatives of the Jews in Cilicia and Asia. The mention of the former is significant. For St. Paul was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, and according to tradition he appeared as a disputant against Stephen. But the result of the controversy was humiliating to Stephens antagonists. They were not able to resist, etc. (verse 10). No wonder Christ had stricken controversialists dumb by the mouth and wisdom He promised to His disciples. As soon as Stephens opponents felt his irresistibility his impeachment was arranged. Lessons:

1. The conditions of successful controversy. The controversy which carries the inner convictions does not necessarily extort open confession. This may be withheld from pride or prejudice as here. How very few controversies are more than a skirmish of words in which both parties are exasperated! Yet truth ought to be able to win its way by its own force. The three qualifications for controversy are, a mouth, or power of expression, wisdom, or power of argument, and lying deeper and giving effect to both, a spirit–the Spirit of your Father. In some modern controversies, nothing but the mouth is exhibited, occasionally wisdom, but it was the Spirit as well as the wisdom by which Stephen spoke which his adversaries were unable to resist. The naked logic of the intellect will not by itself convince, but the logic that is seconded by unction carries with it wonderful weight,

2. We may learn from the fact that Stephens miracles formed but an introduction to his controversies, breaking open a passage for his arguments to reach the minds and consciences of men. Tell me not of an ecclesiastical authority whose dictates are to be received on its own ipse dixit. Stephen did not say after cleansing a few lepers, etc., These miracles prove that we are seat from God: now listen to us at the peril of your souls. He and his colleagues came down into the lowly valley of disputation; they made a public appeal to the Holy Scriptures, and showed that Jesus was the Christ from documents admitted by their opponents. When men who could produce miracles in favour of their teaching entered the arena of controversy, how can any modern communion which has not the attestation of miracles make a claim to be believed on its own unsupported testimony? (Dean Goulburn.)

The first Christian martyr

The Book of Acts is composed upon a definite principle, to wit, what Jesus continued to do and teach after His ascension through the instrumentality of His followers. In the first five chapters this principle is illustrated in the doings and sayings of Peter. But when another steps on the arena in whom this truth is shown in a stronger light Peter is at once dropped; in the sixth and seventh chapters Stephen it is that occupies the forefront, then Philip, then Paul. The avowed object of the writer is not to show us Peter, but the hand of the Lord; and His hand is here more distinctly seen in Stephen than in Peter. Let us look at Stephen as–

I. A man (verse 3).

1. He was an honest man, and had a reputation for honesty. Some people are honest, but they push bargains so hard that their honesty is suspected. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. Not only be upright, but convince others of your uprightness. So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Good understanding; on the margin, good success. An unsullied reputation for integrity helps a man forward even in business–it wins the confidence of the public.

2. Underlying his honesty was his goodness–he was spoken well of by all who knew him. Paul afterwards said that a deacon must have a good report of them which are without, i.e., he should not only stand well in the family and in the Church, but in the world. We should first be light; we should then shine as lights in the world. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify–yourselves? No; but your Father which is in heaven. I can look at the wall, but not through the wall; but I can look at and through the window. And a good character should be clear as glass, transparent as light–a character men can not only look at, but look through and see God beyond.

II. A Christian (verse 5).

1. He was full of faith–a strong, healthy believer. Some of his fellow members were exceedingly weak in the faith, shy, timid, vacillating; but Stephens spiritual life was deep and vigorous. He put unbounded confidence in the new religion; he held fast his profession. By faith the elders obtained good report. Not a great report, perhaps, but a good one. Other factors, such as learning and riches, are necessary to obtain a great report. But faith alone, if strong, will secure you a good report, which is better than a great one. By this Stephen still speaketh, and is still spoken of.

2. He was full of the Holy Ghost; and to be full of the Holy Ghost is better than to be full of faith. Faith at best is only the human aspiring after the Divine; but to be full of the Holy Ghost is for the human to possess the Divine. To trust God is good, to have God is better. One may be full of faith and yet not full of the Holy Ghost. Many of the Old Testament saints were full of faith, but none of them were full of the Holy Ghost –this is the sole prerogative of saints under the New Testament The faith of Abraham has never been excelled, but he fell into sins which could not be tolerated in the Christian Church. The apostles before the Pentecost were full of faith, but on the Pentecost were they filled with the Spirit; and as a natural consequence a process of refinement was then commenced unknown to the religious experience of the Jewish Church. Under the Old Testament the Holy Ghost was upon men, but under the New He is in men–a sweetening, hallowing influence, refining the very fibre of our being. The iron cold has the same properties as the iron heated, but the one is black and dull; the other is white and vivid–the fire imparts to it its own qualities. Thus Stephen was pervaded by the refining fire of God. His whole being was transfused with celestial brightness, and therefore his character grew in fineness of texture.

III. A deacon (verse 8).

1. The fifth verse says he was full of faith, the eighth (according to the best MSS.) that he was full of grace. Grace means favour. In its theological sense it signifies the Divine favour shown to sinners. But as used in the context it signifies the favour shown by Stephen to those with whom he came in contact. Grace some suppose to have the same etymology as grease. Be that as it may; but the body when well greased is lithe and nimble, easy in its carriage, graceful in its movements. Now, what grease does to the body, grace does to the soul. Stephen was elected to distribute the charity of the Church. How did he do it? Did he haughtily impress the humble recipients of his bounty with their inferiority? Certainly not. He did it with grace–beautiful ease and comfortable homeliness. Modern Christians may here learn a valuable lesson–not to insult the objects of their beneficence in the very act of succouring them. Draw out thy soul to the hungry. Thy money? Not only that, but thy soul. Give alms by all means, but give it with grace. 6, Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.

2. Being thus full of grace, he was of necessity full of power. The man devoid of grace cannot in the nature of things wield much influence. But the man habitually kind, polite, and obliging acquires an influence subtle but irresistible in the sphere in which he moves. Judging by the outward show, men are apt to mistake vehemence for power. Lightning is the strong thing in the popular imagination because of the flash and thunder accompanying it. But gravitation, whose voice is never heard, is the central force holding countless worlds in its grip. In like manner the man of wealth, learning, eloquence–the man who can flash and roar–is usually considered the powerful factor. But scan society more narrowly, and you will perceive that none of those things wield so much true power as grace.

3. He did great wonders and miracles among the people. The same laws govern society now as then–get the grace and you will infallibly obtain the power. The great need of the present age is not physical but moral wonders. Think of our trains, steam packets, electric telegraphs, and telephones: what physical miracles can outshine these? It is within the reach of all to do wonders and to be wonders in goodness,

IV. A disputant (verse 10).

1. They were not able to resist the wisdom with which he spake. He proved victorious in the debate, for two reasons. First, he was evidently a practised logician. His Greek culture and Hebrew studies made him a man of great resource in argument. His speech shows him to be a man of keen philosophic insight. The second and chief reason was that he had truth on his side. The synagogue of the Cilician Jews is mentioned–the very synagogue of which young Saul of Tarsus was a member. This fact, coupled with the profound interest he took in the trial of Stephen, demonstrates conclusively that he was present. Young Saul would unquestionably be quite a match to Stephen in a bare trial of dialectic skill. But Stephen, backed by the truth, was too strong even for Saul. A weak mind, supported by a great truth, can bring about the total discomfiture of the stoutest adversary. The paramount duty of every public teacher is to seek to be filled with wisdom, that is, with good, sound, solid information. No amount of eloquence will make up for lack of matter. God can create out of nothing; and doubtless He has blessed sermons with little or nothing in them. In Genesis we read but once that He created out of nothing; but we read repeatedly that He created out of something–the author being very shy of using the stronger word. That is the usual method of the Divine operation still. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words, but the preacher also was wise and taught the people knowledge. The late Rev. Henry Rees, the great Welsh preacher, being asked which kind of sermon he thought most likely the Holy Ghost would bless to the salvation of the hearers, answered, The sermon most likely to effect their salvation without Him.

2. His spirit was as noteworthy as his wisdom. In a written sermon style is of great consequence. Now, what style is to a written, the spirit is to a spoken sermon. Stephen spoke with a marvellous spirit–he imparted warmth, beauty, life, force to his arguments.

3. They were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit. The wisdom alone they could. Dry argument skims only the surface of our nature, it does not stir the depths. Intellectual preaching seldom moves people. Moreover, they could resist the spirit alone; and in this day of sensationalism it is of some moment that we remember it. Mere hwyl, however delightful at the time, leaves our hearers securely immured in sin. But the wisdom and the spirit joined will prove irresistible. Alas! to the cavilling Jews it was the savour of death. If they could not resist his preaching, they could and did resist his person. They suborned men–they stirred up the people–they caught him and brought him to the council.

V. A prisoner (verse 11, etc.).

1. The speech he made serves to show–

(1) That he was profoundly versed in the Hebrew literature. It must be remembered that it was delivered at the spur of the moment under circumstances the most embarrassing. I am told that there are twelve discrepancies in it. How to account for them? Simply that Stephen was obliged to address his judges from memory without the chance of correcting himself by reference to the sacred Scriptures. Is it a cause of wonder that, in a review so minute and so searching, the valiant deacon should commit a few trivial mistakes?

(2) His Greek culture and sympathy. It would be almost a matter of sheer impossibility for a man born and bred in Palestine to deliver it. Native Jews like Peter and John dogmatise; Hellenistic Jews like Stephen and Paul philosophise.

(a) Stephen presents the council with a lucid and succinct philosophy of the national history. The same principle he proves to be running through Jewish history from the call of Abraham to the building of the temple. What is that principle? That true religion is independent of any fixed rite or particular locality, and that religious progress has always meant religious change, every change, however, involving progress on the part of God, but stern resistance on the part of man. What if God hath purposed to make another great change in the establishment of Christianity, and what if the Jews like their forefathers were making a resolute stand against it!

(b) The critics are much exercised to know how his speech can be viewed as a refutation of the charge of blasphemy. But they overlook the fact that he does not defend himself except incidentally. His supreme desire is to vindicate not himself, but the truth. Herein Stephen, the martyr of Christianity, contrasts favourably with Socrates, the martyr of philosophy–both alike indicted for blasphemy. Socrates, to his honour be it said, scorned to stoop to any base or unworthy artifice to save his life; his thoughts nevertheless continually reverted to himself. The first personal pronoun bristles through his famous apology. But Stephen has neither I nor me on his lips so much as once–he wholly forgets himself in his intense eagerness to expound to the council the formative principles and historical career of the kingdom of God.

2. But if his speech was remarkable, his bodily appearance was more remarkable still (verse 15).

(1) Solomon says, A mans wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed. Notice the young man before his admission to college–his countenance is marked by a certain degree of heaviness and opacity, is devoid of expression for the simple reason that there is behind but little to be expressed. Observe him again at the termination of his course–his features are illuminated, his eyes flash pure intelligence. Put light within a marble vase and it grows translucent. And the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord–Light the candle within and the face without will shine.

(2) Now if wisdom is thus able to radiate through the veil of flesh, how much more goodness, and especially goodness and wisdom together? You can tell a good man by his very face. They took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus. That wickedness stamps itself on the features is an universally acknowledged fact. On the other hand, goodness restores grace to the faded features. Many men and Women, though plain enough from an artistic standpoint, possess indescribable charm. Believe me, young people, nothing will so improve your looks as deep piety. It is significant that the word translated good in the New Testament may be also rendered beautiful. Stephen was full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and therefore they beheld his face as it had been the face of an angel.

(3) But is this all? I believe not. When Moses returned from Sinai, the skin of his face shone so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold it. And the angelic lustre on Stephens face was doubtless miraculous. But here as in other instances, the miraculous, so far from obscuring the natural, serves to illustrate it. It brings out into clearer prominence a law which, were it not for the transfiguration of Stephen, of Moses, and of Christ, would escape our attention–that genuine goodness is a Divine light within, whose inevitable tendency it is to make luminous both soul and body. In regeneration this Divine spark is struck, and sanctification is only the theological name for transfiguration. Be ye transformed in the spirit of your mind: literally, transfigured–the very same word that is used to describe the transfiguration of Christ. The Divine brightness first makes luminous the dark, dull, obtuse soul, and then the dark, dull, obtuse body. But more especially is this spiritual luminousness to be witnessed upon deathbeds. Friends beautiful in life are still more beautiful in death. Their faces seem to catch the pure beams of eternity like mountain tops the first light of day.

VI. A martyr.

1. Look at the mad fury of his hearers. They were cut to the heart, sawn asunder. The prophets of old had been sawn asunder by their stiffnecked forefathers; now they are sawn asunder by the powerful ministry of Stephen. They further gnashed on him with their teeth. Only in one other connection is this strong phrase used–there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It seems as though the uncontrollable fury of the damned seized the motley crowd. Hell seemed broken loose on the streets of Jerusalem.

2. But if the rabble were wild with rage, Stephen himself was calm and collected.

(1) He first offered a prayer on his own behalf. He next prayed on behalf of his murderers. So deeply had he drunk of the spirit of the Saviour, that he unconsciously quotes His very words. Nowhere outside the religion of the New Testament do we behold such majesty and meekness in the grim presence of death. Pagans may die heroically–Christians only die forgivingly.

(2) No wonder that such a man should see into heaven. His body was in a state of incipient transfiguration; his eye, therefore, supernaturally strengthened, pierced beyond the azure, and swept the vast places of eternity. Men in the present day will receive only the testimony of the senses, and because they see not heaven and hell they will not believe. But are they sure the supposed weakness of the proof lies not in the weakness of their vision? Stephen looking stedfastly into heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And if credit is to be given–and why not?–to the dying testimony of saints, his is not a solitary case.

(3) But not only he saw into heaven, but heaven itself was opened. There was an elevation of the human–there was also a condescension of the Divine. Under the Old Dispensation the way into the Holiest of All was not made manifest; but now heaven is opened. After this I looked, and behold, a door was opened in heaven–standing open. Since Christ entered, the doors have been standing open–to offer shelter and home to the weary and persecuted pilgrims. I see the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. This is the only instance except twice in the Apocalypse that Jesus after His ascension is called Son of Man. Why called so here? Because He was an object clearly discerned by the bodily eyes of Stephen. To the eyes of faith lie is Jesus or Christ or Lord; to the eyes of the body He will for ever be the Son of Man. When St. John thinks or writes of Him, He is always the Son of God; but when St. John is rapt up in vision He is the Son of Man. When He first ascended He sat to elbow His indisputable right to be there; but having established His right, lie sits or stands as occasion requires. Stephen sees Him standing–eagerly watching this momentous crisis in the history of the Church. And with this magnificent panorama floating before his view, the intrepid martyr fell asleep–to sleep, aye, perchance to dream. This sleep of Stephen has given to our burial grounds the Christian name of cemeteries–they are places where our friends sleep; and if they sleep, they will do well. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

Grace and power

(R.V.):–These two words, grace and power, are closely connected. Their union here is significant. It was not the intellect, or the eloquence, or the activity of St. Stephen which made him powerful among the people, and crowned his labours with such success. It was his abundant grace. Eloquence, and learning, active days and laborious nights, are good and necessary things. God uses them and demands them from His people. He chooses to use human agencies, and therefore demands that the human agents shall give Him of their best, and not offer to Him the blind and lame of their flock. But these things will be utterly useless and ineffective apart from Christ and the power of His grace. (G. T. Stokes, D. D.)

Then there arose certain of the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.—

Stephen disputing in the synagogues

I. The sphere. Amongst the four hundred and eighty synagogues which existed in Jerusalem at this time some were frequented exclusively by the Jews of the Dispersion. Families which had removed from the same region of heathenism to settle for devotion or trade in the holy city clustered together for daily prayer in the same congregation; exactly as to this day in Jerusalem Spanish Jews (called Sephardim), who have dwelt there since 1497, are only to be found in their four synagogues, and German and Polish Jews (called Ashkenazim)in others. Here they fall naturally into three divisions.

1. The Libertines (Libertini), or Freed-men from Rome. Some ninety years had now passed since Pompey carried off a multitude of Jewish captives; and their descendants, most of them manumitted by their masters, had either settled in the Trastavere, on the right bank of the Tiber, or been banished from Italy. It is possible that many of the four thousand whom Tiberius deported to Jardinia (a.d. 19) had found their way to their own land.

2. The Jews from North Africa, from Alexandria, and Cyrene, the capital of Libya, and where Tripoli now stands, both of which swarmed with Hebrews.

3. Asiatic Jews, from the province known in official language as Asia, and always called so in the New Testament, from Cilicia, whose capital gave birth to Saul.

II. With these various representatives of Hellenised Judaism the Church now came for the first time in contact. The elevation of Stephen had this for its result, that his spiritual and intellectual gifts found a wider and more public sphere. His duties brought him in contact with the poor brethren of his own section of the Church, and through them with their unbelieving neighbours. These opportunities he used for the preaching of the gospel. Stephen was much more than an almoner. He was a deep student of tim Old Testament, a theologian of unusual insight, a powerful reasoner, and an advanced Christian. In him we first find those gifts of healing which Jesus had given the apostles exercised by a man who was no apostle. In him, too, we find the promise fulfilled which had hitherto been fulfilled to Peter (Luk 21:15). His manner of speech, however, was unlike that of Peter. Peter was a witness, and preached by witness-bearing. Stephen was a student, and preached by exposition and controversy. These synagogues, to which no doubt he belonged, were homes of learning and bigotry. Intense enough and terribly sincere were the disputants whom Stephen encountered, but proud, narrow, self-righteous, and bitter; just the men to argue themselves into a bad temper, and, when beaten in logic, to fall to abuse.

III. We are left to gather the subject of dispute from the result. From the charge brought against Stephen, from the evidence of the witnesses, and from his own defence, we gather that that great question was the bearing of the new faith on the old system.

1. In his earliest sermons Peter had hinted that the advent of Jesus, His passion and resurrection, formed the consummation towards which Mosaism pointed, the accomplishment of the great hope which all the prophets had foretold, and for which Israel waited. This constructive teaching was not unpopular, and orthodox Jews did not cease to be so upon baptism. Up to this time the question had not been raised, What if the Jewish hierarchy and commonwealth reject it? Now, however, it was getting to be not unlikely that the Sanhedrin might excommunicate the Church. Suppose it did, was that to be conclusive against the Church? Must the new economy be fettered by the limitations of the old? Nay, did not the very coming of Him to whom the whole symbolic ritual pointed require its abolition, and initiate of necessity a new worship?

2. How far Stephen went in this direction it is impossible to tell, but on it his face was set. He was the first man who dared to think that the gospel was a Divine step forward, which existing institutions might refuse to accept, and in that case have to be dispensed with. He probably went a good way in depreciation of the Mosaic system. To be sure the false witnesses misrepresented him as his Master was misrepresented. Still Stephen must have said something like it, nor is it hard to guess in what sense he said it. The whole of Mosaic worship on its external national side was anchored on the rock on which the temple stood. There was nowhere else any altar, priesthood, etc. Moreover, the current faith of the people believed in all this external system, and in little else. So long as that stood, God was propitious and Israel blest; no matter how full the temple was of cheating or Jerusalem of uncleanness. This was the system which threatened to reject the gospel. As it had slain Christ, it seemed about to cut off from its fellowship Christs Church. What did recent events prognosticate? The downfall of Christs cause over the temple system? Stephen had read the history of his nation with other eyes than those of the rabbis. Underneath all the changes of Hebrew story he had learned to trace a Divine progress towards some spiritual end. He had not found in this latest phase of national religious life such a finality as his countrymen dreamed of. The most material, local, and unspiritual of all forms of Hebrew worship did not seem the form likely to be everlasting. But one thing he had found to mark the whole of his ancestral history. As often as God had led Israel forward through a moment of change into a fresh spiritual epoch of blessing, so often had His purpose been rejected by the bulk of Israel. This they were doing now, by idolising a material temple and rejecting a spiritual Christ.

Here is the key to Stephens long defence, which maintained–

1. That a mode of worship limited to a single spot and a fixed ritual was by no means essential to Gods service, but had been late in its origin and temporary in its purpose–being only one most recent stage in a very long and gradual process of Divine manifestation.

2. That at every critical turning in Israels history Israel had mistaken the leadings of God, and resisted those who were sent to save it. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.)

And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.—

The source of ministerial power

It is impossible to listen to the ministrations of others or to watch carefully our own without perceiving great inequalities in respect of power. You will observe many devoted men who are amiable in their characters, zealous in their ministry, whose sermons are carefully prepared, who preach the truth faithfully, while, on the other hand, there is but little in their ministry of the demonstration of the Spirit and power. On the other hand, you often see men of less intellectual calibre who produce an impression which even the unconverted cannot fail to feel. And this inequality is scarcely less observable in regard to one individual. You may frequently hear a sermon full of power in the morning, and one decidedly feeble, from the same minister, in the evening; and if you could ascertain the preachers own opinion, you would find, in all probability, that he was best satisfied with the one which the people found the feeblest. Now, it is clear that this gift of power is pre-eminently the want of the Church of God, both at home and abroad. Note–

I. Stephens power. It was–

1. The power of persuasion (verse 7).

2. It was a power in controversial defence of truth (verse 9).

3. It was the power of searching and probing the heart to the very quick (Act 7:54).

4. But there is one thing to remark, and it is this–when we look for power, we must not look for an easy, smooth, pleasant, triumphant victory. Stephen had all the power of which we speak, but it called forth the angry passions of the wicked, so that they rose up against him, and he fell the first martyr to the truth. Stephens power, however, is just the very thing we want. We want persuasive power to bring in men, we want controversial power to maintain the truth, and we want heart-searching power to awaken sinners, even if it provoke them. This is the power to be sought and prayed for by the whole Church of God.

II. Its sources.

1. Wisdom. There was the same connection between wisdom and power in Micah, Now then, I am full of power, of the Spirit of the Lord, of wisdom, and of might. There is the same connection in the prophecies of our blessed Saviour (Isa 11:1-16.)–the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, was given to him. Light words, conceits, affectations, and outward display overthrow all thoughts of power. The man of God wants wisdom. He has to unfold the deep things of God, and he must not go lightly to the work. He is a steward in the Lords household; he has to deal with a multitude of different dispositions, under different circumstances. Stephens wisdom was pre-eminently Scriptural. There is only one of his discourses preserved, and that one is full of Scripture. He was not one of those who thought his own reason was anything when compared with the wisdom of God. He was not ashamed to draw all his conclusions from the Bible, and to base the whole fabric of his reasonings simply upon Scripture. The clearest evidence of the most consummate folly is the venturing forth in the strength of your own understandings. There may be wisdom in the simplest cottager, or the youngest child, far exceeding the loftiest flights of merely intellectual philosophy, Nor does it require anything extraordinary either in intellect or eloquence to produce such wisdom, for the Psalmist says, I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I know more than the ancients, because I keep Thy precepts.

2. Faith. The connection between faith and power is a union frequently recurring. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Abraham was strong in faith, but that may refer to one simple single act; full of faith implies that the whole mind and character were completely imbued with it. It was like St. Paul, when he said, The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. But how is this faith displayed?

(1) In dependence. It is the office of faith to lean. Self-satisfied men are confident in their own powers and do not care to lean. Timid, doubting souls are so perplexed by their misgivings that they are almost afraid to lean, but the sinner who knows his nothingness leans his whole weight on Christ. So it is in our own personal experience. Men are very apt to lean with one hand on Christ, and one hand on resolutions, or on the Church, or on the sacraments; but we must learn to lean with both hands on Christ, and to lean the whole weight; and when you so begin to lean you will first taste the joy of peace and power. Men may go forth to preach leaning upon the excellences of a previous education, or on the advantages of his early youth. But what are these for the great work we have to do?

(2) In expectation, for faith is the substance of things asked for. If we pray for pardon without expectation of receiving it, or for the Holy Spirit without opening the heart in the full hope of his sacred entrance, or if we send men in the Lords name, or go forth ourselves, to preach the gospel without expectations, where can be our faith? And is not this one reason why there is no more power in the Church of God? Do we not meet Sunday after Sunday with very little practical belief that souls will be born again through the preached Word? Perhaps a man begins with sanguine expectation, but after some months or years of hard toil he is ready to say with Peter, We have toiled all night and taken nothing. Stephen was full of power; but he was first full of faith. He could grasp a fast hold of the Saviour, and so they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

3. All his wisdom, faith, and power were to be traced to a yet higher source–he was first full of the Holy Ghost. This has always been so. Micah was full of power, and he says, Truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord. The great mountain shall melt before Zerubbabel; but Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts. Paul went to Corinth, not with excellency of speech, or mans wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power. In Thessalonica his ministry came not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and with much assurance. Even Stephen and Peter and all the rest were powerless until the Spirit of God came, and then they were full of power, and soon thousands were added to the Church. It is clear, therefore, that if we desire power in our ministry, we must seek first for the gift promised by our blessed Lord and Saviour in Joh 14:17. In Stephens case the two promises were fulfilled. The Spirit was with him, so that opposing powers were overcome under the influence of the Spirit. He was in him, so that when the stones were dashed at him there was a calm spirit of well-supported prayer. Conclusion: There is a mighty conflict raging–every day the conflict thickens. Depend upon it that these are not days for an easy, tranquil, indulgent Christianity. I might ask for money; I might ask for men–and we want them even more than money–but the great want is power to strengthen the whole Church of God. What is the use of men if God does not make them men of power? We do not want mere ecclesiastical machines, because we do not believe in mere ecclesiastical machinery. We want men filled with wisdom, faith, and the Holy Ghost. (E. Hoare, M. A.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 8. Stephen, full of faith and power] Instead of , faith, , grace, is the reading of ABD, several others, the Syriac of Erpen, the Coptic, Armenian, Vulgate, and some of the fathers. This reading Griesbach has admitted into the text. Some MSS. join both readings. Stephen was full of faith-gave unlimited credence to the promises of his Lord; he was full of grace-receiving the fulfilment of those promises, he enjoyed much of the unction of the Divine Spirit, and much of the favour of his God; and, in consequence, he was full of power, , of the Divine energy by which he was enabled to work great wonders and miracles among the people.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Full of faith and power; enabled to preach, dispute, do, and suffer all things through Christ.

Did great wonders and miracles among the people; of whom he cured many; or,

among the people, in that he did these wonders publicly.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

8. And Stephen, &c.Theforegoing narrative seems to be only an introduction to what follows.

full of faithrather,”of grace,” as the best manuscripts read.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Stephen, full of faith and power,…. The historian proceeds to give a narrative of Stephen particularly, the first of the seven deacons; of his faith and miracles, of his elocution and wisdom, of his courage and intrepidity, of his constancy, and of his suffering martyrdom. He is said to be full of faith, as before, Ac 6:5 the Alexandrian copy, and four of Beza’s copies read, “full of grace”; and so do the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions; the Ethiopic version reads, “full of the grace of God”: he had an uncommon share of it; it was exceeding abundant in him; he had a sufficiency of it for the service and sufferings he was called to: and he was full of power to preach the Gospel, and teach it the people, which he did with authority; to defend it, and oppose the adversaries of it; to bear reproach and indignities for it, and even death itself; and to do miraculous works for the confirmation of it, as follows:

did great wonders and miracles among the people; openly before them, such as speaking with divers tongues, healing diseases, casting out devils, &c.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Stephen’s Address.

      8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.   9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.   10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.   11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.   12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,   13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:   14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.   15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

      Stephen, no doubt was diligent and faithful in the discharge of his office as distributor of the church’s charity, and laid out himself to put that affair in a good method, which he did to universal satisfaction; and though it appears here that he was a man of uncommon gifts, and fitted for a higher station, yet, being called to that office, he did not think it below him to do the duty of it. And, being faithful in a little, he was entrusted with more; and, though we do not find him propagating the gospel by preaching and baptizing, yet we find him here called out to very honourable services, and owned in them.

      I. He proved the truth of the gospel, by working miracles in Christ’s name, v. 8. 1. He was full of faith and power, that is, of a strong faith, by which he was enabled to do great things. Those that are full of faith are full of power, because by faith the power of God is engaged for us. His faith did so fill him that it left no room for unbelief and made room for the influences of divine grace, so that, as the prophet speaks, he was full of power by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts, Mic. iii. 8. By faith we are emptied of self, and so are filled with Christ, who is the wisdom of God and the power of God. 2. Being so he did great wonders and miracles among the people, openly, and in the sight of all; for Christ’s miracles feared not the strictest scrutiny. It is not strange that Stephen, though he was not a preacher by office, did these great wonders, for we find that these were distinct gifts of the Spirit, and divided severally, for to one was given the working of miracles, and to another prophecy,1Co 12:10; 1Co 12:11. And these signs followed not only those that preached, but those that believed. Mark xvi. 17.

      II. He pleaded the cause of Christianity against those that opposed it, and argued against it (Act 6:9; Act 6:10); he served the interests of religion as a disputant, in the high places of the field, while others were serving them as vinedressers and husbandmen.

      1. We are here told who were his opponents, v. 9. They were Jews, but Hellenist Jews, Jews of the dispersion, who seem to have been more zealous for their religion than the native Jews; it was with difficulty that they retained the practice and profession of it in the country where they lived, where they were as speckled birds, and not without great expense and toil that they kept up their attendance at Jerusalem, and this made them more active sticklers for Judaism than those were whose profession of their religion was cheap and easy. They were of the synagogue which is called the synagogue of the Libertines; the Romans called those Liberti, or Libertini, who either, being foreigners, were naturalized, or, being slaves by birth, were manumitted, or made freemen. Some think that these Libertines were such of the Jews as had obtained the Roman freedom, as Paul had (Act 22:27; Act 22:28); and it is probable that he was the most forward man of this synagogue of the Libertines in disputing with Stephen, and engaged others in the dispute, for we find him busy in the stoning of Stephen, and consenting to his death. There were others that belonged to the synagogue of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, of which synagogue the Jewish writers speak; and others that belonged to their synagogue who were of Cilicia and Asia; and if Paul, as a freeman of Rome, did not belong to the synagogue of the Libertines, he belonged to this, as a native of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia: it is probable that he might be a member of both. The Jews that were born in other countries, and had concerns in them, had frequent occasion, not only to resort to, but to reside in, Jerusalem. Each nation had its synagogue, as in London there are French, and Dutch, and Danish churches: and those synagogues were the schools to which the Jews of those nations sent their youth to be educated in the Jewish learning. Now those that were tutors and professors in these synagogues, seeing the gospel grow, and the rulers conniving at the growth of it, and fearing what would be the consequence of it to the Jewish religion, which they were jealous for, being confident of the goodness of their cause, and their own sufficiency to manage it, would undertake to run down Christianity by force of argument. It was a fair and rational way of dealing with it, and what religion is always ready to admit. Produce your cause, saith the Lord, bring forth your strong reasons, Isa. xli. 21. But why did they dispute with Stephen? And why not with the apostles themselves? (1.) Some think because they despised the apostles as unlearned and ignorant men, whom they thought it below them to engage with; but Stephen was bred a scholar, and they thought it their honour to meddle with their match. (2.) Others think it was because they stood in awe of the apostles, and could not be so free and familiar with them as they could be with Stephen, who was in an inferior office. (3.) Perhaps, they having given a public challenge, Stephen was chosen and appointed by the disciples to be their champion; for it was not meet that the apostles should leave the preaching of the word of God to engage in controversy. Stephen, who was only a deacon in the church, and a very sharp young man, of bright parts, and better qualified to deal with wrangling disputants than the apostles themselves, was appointed to this service. Some historians say that Stephen had been bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, and that Saul and the rest of them set upon him as a deserter, and with a particular fury made him their mark. (4.) It is probable that they disputed with Stephen because he was zealous to argue with them and convince them, and this was the service to which God had called him.

      2. We are here told how he carried the point in this dispute (v. 10): They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. They could neither support their own arguments nor answer his. He proved by such irresistible arguments that Jesus is the Christ, and delivered himself with so much clearness and fulness that they had nothing to object against what he said; though they were not convinced, yet they were confounded. It is not said, They were not able to resist him, but, They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke, that Spirit of wisdom which spoke by him. Now was fulfilled that promise, I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist, Luke xxi. 15. They thought they had only disputed with Stephen, and could make their part good with him; but they were disputing with the Spirit of God in him, for whom they were an unequal match.

      III. At length, he sealed it with his blood; so we shall find he did in the next chapter; here we have some steps taken by his enemies towards it. When they could not answer his arguments as a disputant, they prosecuted him as a criminal, and suborned witnesses against him, to swear blasphemy upon him. “On such terms (saith Mr. Baxter here) do we dispute with malignant men. And it is next to a miracle of providence that no greater number of religious persons have been murdered in the world, by the way of perjury and pretence of law, when so many thousands hate them who make no conscience of false oaths.” They suborned men, that is, instructed them what to say, and then hired them to swear it. They were the more enraged against him because he had proved them to be in the wrong, and shown them the right way; for which they ought to have given him their best thanks. Was he therefore become their enemy, because he told them the truth, and proved it to be so? Now let us observe here,

      1. How with all possible art and industry they incensed both the government and the mob against him, that, if they could not prevail by the one, they might by the other (v. 12): They stirred up the people against him, that, if the sanhedrim should still think fit (according to Gamaliel’s advice) to let him alone, yet they might run him down by a popular rage and tumult; they also found means to stir up the elders and scribes against him, that, if the people should countenance and protect him, they might prevail by authority. Thus they doubted not but to gain their point, when then had two strings to their bow.

      2. How they got him to the bar: They came upon him, when he little thought of it, and caught him and brought him to the council. They came upon him in a body, and flew upon him as a lion upon his prey; so the word signifies. By their rude and violent treatment of him, they would represent him, both to the people, and to the government, as a dangerous man, that would either flee from justice if he were not watched, or fight with it if he were not put under a force. Having caught him, they brought him triumphantly into the council, and, as it should seem, so hastily that he had none of his friends with him. They had found, when they brought many together, that they emboldened one another, and strengthened one another’s hands; and therefore they will try how to deal with them singly.

      3. How they were prepared with evidence ready to produce against him. They were resolved that they would not be run a-ground, as they were when they brought our Saviour upon his trial, and then had to seek for witnesses. These were got ready beforehand, and were instructed to make oath that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God (v. 11) –against this holy place and the law (v. 13); for they heard him say what Jesus would do to their place and their customs, v. 14. It is probable that he had said something to that purport; and yet those who swore it against him are called false witnesses, because, though there was something of truth in their testimony, yet they put a wrong and malicious construction upon what he had said, and perverted it. Observe,

      (1.) What was the general charge exhibited against him–that he spoke blasphemous words; and, to aggravate the matter, “He ceases not to speak blasphemous words; it is his common talk, his discourse in all companies; wheresoever he comes, he makes it his business to instil his notions into all he converses with.” It intimates likewise something of contumacy and contempt of admonition. “He has been warned against it, and yet ceases not to talk at this rate.” Blasphemy is justly reckoned a heinous crime (to speak contemptibly and reproachfully of God our Maker), and therefore Stephen’s persecutors would be thought to have a deep concern upon them for the honour of God’s name, and to do this in a jealousy for that. As it was with the confessors and martyrs of the Old Testament, so it was with those of the New–their brethren that hated them, and cast them out, said, Let the Lord be glorified; and pretended they did him service in it. He is said to have spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Thus far they were right, that those who blaspheme Moses (if they meant the writings of Moses, which were given by inspiration of God) blaspheme God himself. Those that speak reproachfully of the scriptures, and ridicule them, reflect upon God himself, and do despite to him. His great intention is to magnify the law and make it honourable; those therefore that vilify the law, and make it contemptible, blaspheme his name; for he has magnified his word above all his name. But did Stephen blaspheme Moses? By no means, he was far from it. Christ, and the preachers of his gospel, never said any thing that looked like blaspheming Moses; they always quoted his writings with respect, appealed to them, and said no other things than what Moses said should come; very unjustly therefore is Stephen indicted for blaspheming Moses. But,

      (2.) Let us see how this charge is supported and made out; why, truly, when the thing was to be proved, all they can charge him with is that he hath spoken blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; and this must be deemed and taken as blasphemy against Moses and against God himself. Thus does the charge dwindle when it comes to the evidence. [1.] He is charged with blaspheming this holy place. Some understand this of the city of Jerusalem, which was the holy city, and which they had a mighty jealousy for. But it is rather meant of the temple, that holy house. Christ was condemned as a blasphemer for words which were thought to reflect upon the temple, which they seemed concerned for the honour of, even when they by their wickedness had profaned it. [2.] He is charged with blaspheming the law, of which they made their boast, and in which they put their trust, when through breaking the law they dishonoured God, Rom. ii. 23. Well, but how can they make this out? Why, here the charge dwindles again; for all they can accuse him of is that they had themselves heard him say (but how it came in, or what explication he gave to if, they think not themselves bound to give account) that this Jesus of Nazareth, who was so much talked of, shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us. He could not be charged with having said any thing to the disparagement either of the temple or of the law. The priests had themselves profaned the temple, by making it not only a house of merchandise, but a den of thieves; yet they would be thought zealous for the honour of it, against one that had never said any thing amiss of it, but had attended it more as a house of prayer, according to the true intention of it, than they had. Nor had he ever reproached the law as they had. But, First, He had said, Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, destroy the temple, destroy Jerusalem. It is probable that he might say so; and what blasphemy was it against the holy place to say that it should not be perpetual any more than Shiloh was, and that the just and holy God would not continue the privileges of his sanctuary to those that abused them? Had not the prophets given the same warning to their fathers of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans? Nay, when the temple was first built, had not God himself given the same warning: This house, which is high, shall be an astonishment, 2 Chron. vii. 21. And is he a blasphemer, then, who tells them that Jesus of Nazareth, if they continue their opposition to him, will bring a just destruction upon their place and nation, and they may thank themselves? Those wickedly abuse their profession of religion who, under colour of that, call the reproofs given them for their disagreeable conversations blasphemous reflections upon their religion. Secondly, He had said, This Jesus shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us. And it was expected that in the days of the Messiah they should be changed, and that the shadows should be done away when the substance was come; yet this was no essential change of the law, but the perfecting of it. Christ came, not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law; and, if he changed some customs that Moses delivered, it was to introduce and establish those that were much better; and if the Jewish church had not obstinately refused to come into this new establishment, and adhered to the ceremonial law, for aught I know their place had not been destroyed; so that for putting them into a certain way to prevent their destruction, and for giving them certain notice of their destruction if they did not take that way, he is accused as a blasphemer.

      IV. We are here told how God owned him when he was brought before the council, and made it to appear that he stood by him (v. 15): All that sat in the council, the priests, scribes, and elders, looking stedfastly on him, being a stranger, and one they had not yet had before them, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. It is usual for judges to observe the countenance of the prisoner, which sometimes is an indication either of guilt or innocence. Now Stephen appeared at the bar with the countenance as of an angel. 1. Perhaps it intimates no more than that he had an extraordinarily pleasant, cheerful countenance, and there was not in it the least sign either of fear for himself or anger at his persecutors. He looked as if he had never been better pleased in his life than he was now when he was called out to bear his testimony to the gospel of Christ, thus publicly, and stood fair for the crown of martyrdom. Such an undisturbed serenity, such an undaunted courage, and such an unaccountable mixture of mildness and majesty, there was in his countenance, that every one said he looked like an angel; enough surely to convince the Sadducees that there are angels, when they saw before their eyes an incarnate angel. 2. It should rather seem that there was a miraculous splendour and brightness upon his countenance, like that of our Saviour when he was transfigured–or, at least, that of Moses when he came down from the mount–God designing thereby to put honour upon his faithful witness and confusion upon his persecutors and judges, whose sin would be highly aggravated, and would be indeed a rebellion against the light, if, notwithstanding this, they proceeded against him. Whether he himself knew that the skin of his face shone or no we are not told; but all that sat in the council saw it, and probably took notice of it to one another, and an arrant shame it was that when they saw, and could not but see by it that he was owned of God, they did not call him from standing at the bar to sit in the chief seat upon the bench. Wisdom and holiness make a man’s face to shine, and yet these will not secure men from the greatest indignities; and no wonder, when the shining of Stephen’s face could not be his protection; though it had been easy to prove that if he had been guilty of putting any dishonour upon Moses God would not thus have put Moses’s honour upon him.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Wrought (). Imperfect active, repeatedly wrought. Evidently a man like Stephen would not confine his “ministry” to “serving tables.” He was called in verse 5 “full of faith and the Holy Spirit.” Here he is termed “full of grace (so the best MSS., not faith) and power.” The four words give a picture of remarkable attractiveness. The grace of God gave him the power and so “he kept on doing great wonders and signs among the people.” He was a sudden whirlwind of power in the very realm of Peter and John and the rest.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Did [] . Imperfect : was working wonders during the progress of the events described in the previous verse.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

The Third Persecution Against the Church Stephen Brought Before the Council, V. 8-15

1) “And Stephen, full of faith and power,” (Stephanos de pleres charitos kai dunameos) “Then Stephen full of or (controlled by) grace and dynamic power,” the deacon and evangelist Stephen, who was also a doctrinarian, as indicated by his astute address on the occasion of his death, recounted Act 7:1-60. On him had been bestowed special Divine grace, favor, and efficiency in the use of gifts, as expressed regarding the Lord, Luk 5:17; Luk 5:22. The type of power referred to was supernatural power, Act 6:10. This power was challenged by the Sanhedrin, Act 4:7.

2) “Did great wonders and miracles,” (epoie terara kai semeia megala) “Performed (did) great wonders and signs,” as the apostles had done before him, Act 5:12-16; Heb 2:3-4.

3) “Among the people,” (en to lao) “in the midst of or among the people,” whom the Sanhedrin council had feared so much, Act 4:13-21; Act 5:26; Act 5:38-39.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

8. And Stephen Luke reciteth in this place a new combat of the Church, whereby it appeareth that the glory of the gospel was always joined with the cross and divers troubles. And this is the sum, that the Church was assaulted in the person of one man. Whereby it came to pass that the enemies were the more bold, and being imbrued with innocent blood, did rage sorer than they had wont; for they had not gone as yet beyond the prison and rods. But to the end we may know that the name of Christ was glorified as well in the life as in the death of Stephen, Luke saith at the first, that he was full of faith and power. Whereby he signifieth that his faith was excellent, and that he excelled in power to do miracles. Neither ought we to imagine perfection of faith, because he is said to be full of faith; but this manner of speaking is much used in the Scripture, to call those full of the gifts of God who are abundantly endued with the same. I take power (without question) for ability to do miracles. Faith comprehendeth not only the gift of understanding, but also the ferventness of zeal. Forasmuch as his name was famous by reason of his excellency, it came thereby to pass that the rage of the wicked was bent against him, as it were, with one consent, to overthrow him. (354) For so soon as the force and grace of the Spirit doth show itself, the fury of Satan is by and by provoked.

And it shall appear by the text that Stephen was diligent and courageous in spreading abroad the doctrine of the gospel; but Luke passeth over that, being content to have commended his faith, which could not be slothful and sluggish.

(354) “ Uno quasi impetu in eum versa fuerit,” was, as it were, with one impulse directed against him.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 6:8. Faith.According to the best texts should be grace (Act. 4:33); the change having probably been made to correspond with Act. 6:5.

Act. 6:9. The synagogue which is called, etc., should be of the Libertines and of the Cyrenians and of, etc. The Rabbis credited Jerusalem with 480 synagogues, but Talmudic information is not perfectly reliable. The Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians may have attended one synagogue (Holtzmann, Hausrath, Zckler, Plumptre), and the Cilicians along with the Asians another; but the simplest view is to repeat some of, etc., before each proper name, and to count as many synagogues as there are names (Meyer, De Wette, Hackett). The Libertini were Jews who had been slaves at Rome, having been deported thither after Pompeys war, but on obtaining their freedom had returned to Jerusalem. Tacitus (Ann., ii. 85) speaks of 4,000 of such Jewish freedmen as having been banished to Sardinia. From this class Stephen may have sprung. The Cyrenians were Jews from Cyrene (Act. 2:10), of the population of which island the fourth part were Jews. The Alexandrians.From the city of that name, of which the fifth part was Jewish. To the synagogue of Cilicia Saul of Tarsus may have belonged (Act. 7:58). Asia, being distinguished from Cilicia, cannot mean the whole of Asia Minor, but must be restricted to Proconsular Asia, as in Act. 2:9; Act. 16:6; Act. 19:10; Act. 19:22; Act. 19:26-27, etc. (Holtzmann); though Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 150) thinks the use of the term here is quite consistent with either the Roman (the narrower) or the popular (the wider) sense.

Act. 6:11. Suborned.I.e., secretly instructed, putting the charge into their mouths (compare Mat. 26:59-60). Blasphemous words.Compare Mat. 26:65.

Act. 6:12. The elders and the Scribes.The classes from which the Sanhedrim was taken.

Act. 6:13. Set up.Introduced and placed before the council (Hackett). False witnesses.No extravagant exaggeration of Luke, contradicted by the actual facts of the case (Baur, Zeller, Overbeck), since, according to chap. 7. Stephen had made no such assault upon the Law and the Temple as that with which he was charged (Zckler). It is noticeable that the adjective blasphemous is now in the best texts omitted as an insertion from Act. 6:11.

Act. 6:14. This Jesus of Nazareth.In the witnesses mouths an expression of contempt. Shall destroy this place.The temple, in a room or chamber of which the court may have been sitting. Based probably on a reminiscence of Christs words in Joh. 2:19, which Stephen may have quoted. The customs which Moses delivered us.Compare Act. 16:21, Act. 21:21; meaning the ceremonial ordinances.

Act. 6:15. All that sat in the council. Baur finds in the statement that the scene with reference to Stephen was laid before the council a desire to institute a parallel between Stephens trial and that of Christ; but no sufficient reason can be given why the accuracy of Lukes narrative should be challenged. Weizscker admits that Stephen was put upon his trial, and, as the result, stoned to death (see on Act. 7:59). The face of an angel.Signifying more than that Stephens countenance was illumined by a radiant serenity produced by the fulness of the Spirit which dwelt within him (Holtzmann). At the least the expression points to a supernatural lustre like that with which the face of Moses shone on descending from Sinai (Exo. 34:29-35; 2Co. 3:13). According to Old Testament conceptions angels were superterrestrial beings, who, in order to be seen by men, were able to assume bodily forms corresponding to their rank. Since all in the council beheld Stephens face, it is clear that the historian is not dealing with a vision, but depicting an external phenomenon.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 6:8-15

The Ministry of Stephen; or, the Rising of a Bright Particular Star

I. The miracles and preaching of Stephen.

1. His miracles were great.

(1) In origin, proceeding from the grace (rather than faith) of which he was fullgrace here being the supernatural endowment conferred on him by the Holy Ghost.
(2) In efficiency, being remarkable for the indications they gave of divine power.
(3) In number, it being most likely they were neither few nor small, but numerous and striking.
(4) In impressiveness, having in all probability arrested the attention and awed the hearts of those in whose presence they were done. What they were is not toldan indication that Luke was not composing a romance but writing a history.
2. His preaching was irresistible.

(1) For the wisdom (knowledge of divine truth) and spiritual insight (discernment of its applicability to souls) which it displayed, and (compare Luk. 21:15),

(2) for the Holy Spirit who was behind that wisdom and that insight as their source, inspiration, and power (compare Mar. 13:11). No interpreter of Scripture can be placed alongside of the Holy Ghost for either clearness or force of exposition (1Co. 2:13).

II. The opponents and revilers of Stephen.

1. His opponents. Certain parties from the various synagogues in the metropolis, of which, according to the Rabbis, there were then 480.

(1) Their designations. Libertines: freed men who had been slaves, their fathers having been sold as bondmen to Rome after Pompeys expedition against Juda in B.C. 53. Cyrenians: belonging to the city of Cyrene in Lybia, North Africa, of whose population a fourth part were Jews (Jos., Ant., XIV. vii., 2), the rest being derived from the Lacedemonians (Wars, II. xvi., 4). From this class came Simon the Cyrenian (Luk. 23:26), with his two sons, Alexander and Rufus (Mar. 15:21). Cyrenians attended Pentecost (Act. 2:10), and preached to the Greek-speaking Jews at Antioch (Act. 11:20), while Lucius of Cyrene was among the prophets and teachers associated with the Church in that city (Act. 13:1). Alexandrians: Jews from Alexandria in Egypt, the second city in the empire, and a principal seat of Hellenic learning and culture. Numbering one hundred thousand, they occupied a quarter of the city by themselves, were governed by an ethnarch of their own (i.e., enjoyed Home Rule), and had high privileges conferred upon them by Ptolemy Philadelphus. There Philo at that time resided. From Alexandria in former times (B.C. 280) had come the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Cilicians: from the south-east of Asia Minor, where many Jews were settled, Antiochus the Great having established a colony there. Among those attached to their synagogue would no doubt be Saul of Tarsus (Act. 9:11). Asians: from the pro-consular province or geographical division of Asia Minor, which included Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, and had Ephesus as its capital. Asian Jews appear at a later stage in the history of Paul (Act. 21:27).

(2) Their disputation. They discussed with Stephen the teaching he promulgated, which, in addition to the doctrine of Jesus and the resurrection, embraced that of the passing away of the Old Testament temple-worship, for the permanence of which they as patriots and disciples of Moses jealously contended.
(3) Their defeat. They could not resist the wisdom and spirit with which he spoke. Not his equals in either Biblical learning or sacred eloquence, they could not reply to his arguments, or deny his conclusions, being inwardly convinced of the truth of both.
(4) Their duplicity. To avenge themselves of their victorious adversary they secretly instructed witnesses to appear against him with a trumped-up accusation, the terms of which they had previously concerted.
2. His revilers. These wretched instrument; of his opponents treachery, were without question, lewd fellows of the baser sort, creatures without consciences

Fellows by the hand of nature markd
Quoted and signd to do a deed of shame

Shakespeare, King John, Act IV., Sc. 2.

who for a consideration would lend themselves to any bloody villainy, and would not hesitate to swear away the lives of the innocent. Such monsters of wickedness had appeared against the Saviour (Mat. 26:59).

III. The arrest and indictment of Stephen.

1. His arrest.

(1) Moved by his defeated opponents. A poor answer to give anothers arguments to shut him up in prison or charge him with a crime he has not committed. But people who fail in logic frequently resort to law, endeavouring to reach by force or fraud what they have not been able to gain by honesty and reason.

(2) Effected by the populace, the elders, and the Scribes. It is never difficult to inflame the mob, whose inconstancy is as proverbial as that of the wind. If the elders and the Scribes were ablaze already against the new sect and its leaders, hitherto the people had sided with the Christians (Act. 5:22). Now, however, their patriotic fears had been stirred by the slanders poured into their ears.

(3) Followed by a speedy trial. Having seized him either in his house or most likely in the temple while teaching they hurried him off, as they had hurried Christ, not to prison but to judgmenthaling him before the council or Sanhedrim which probably had arranged to meet for despatch of business, so important was the occasion that had arisen.
2. His indictment.

(1) Technically correct. Consisting of two counts which were really one. First, that he had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Secondly, and in this lay the blasphemy, that he had uttered words against the temple and the law, saying that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple and change the customs which Moses had delivered to the nations. Like the similar impeachment preferred against Christ (Mat. 26:61; Mat. 26:63; Joh. 5:18) which had rested on words actually used by Him, these accusations against Stephen may have been based on sentences which had escaped his lips. Yet were they

(2) Essentially incorrect. Stephen indeed had, ostensibly, and in the letter, spoken against the Hebrew Lawgiver and the Jewish temple in so far as he had taught, that the Christian was superior to the Mosaic dispensation, that the days of sacrificial worship were numbered, that the gospel was designed to supersede the law, that observance of the Levitical ritual was henceforth to be no condition of justification, and that worship was no more to be limited to Jerusalem, but might be freely, if spiritually, offered anywhere. Yet in so teaching Stephen had neither blasphemed God nor contemned Moses, inasmuch as Christ was the prophet like unto himself (Moses), whom the Lawgiver foretold, and the system of worship inaugurated by Christ was in reality a carrying forward into fulfilment of all that had been prefigured and pre-signified by the Mosaic dispensation. That Stephens accusers felt secretly conscious of distorting his words has been argued from the anti-climax which reveals itself in their indictment. First, before his arrest they accuse the eloquent deacon of blaspheming Moses and Goda palpable exaggeration. Next, in the council they drop the term of blasphemy and limit their charge to speaking against the temple and the law. Lastly, confronted with the accused, they water down their language to this, that they had heard him repeat some statement about Jesus of Nazareths intention to destroy the temple and change its customs.

IV. The attitude and appearance of Stephen.

1. His attitude. One of unresisting meekness. With perfect calmness he listened to the charges preferred against him. Like his master, he opened not his mouth, answered not a word till invited to speak. Conscious of no crime, he was in no haste to defend himself.

2. His appearance. One of unearthly beauty. All who sat in the council, his accusers and his judges, fastening their eyes upon him, in expectation of what he would reply to the grave indictment to which he had listened, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. The radiance was one which never shone on sea or land, was more than the serene and dignified lustre, solar light it has been named, wherewith the soul in moments of crisis, when conscious of innocence, illuminates the countenance; it was the shine of supernatural glory, reflected back from the face of the Risen Christ on whom he gazed (Act. 7:55)like the light which rayed forth from the countenance of Moses when he descended from the Mount (Exo. 34:29-30; Exo. 34:35)attesting to those who beheld it, his innocence.

Learn.

1. The secret of true ministerial influencebeing filled with grace and power, with wisdom and the Holy Spirit.
2. The triumphant career which lies before the gospelits enemies will not be able for ever to resist its progress, dispute its truth, or prevent its sway.
3. The certainty that all faithful preachers of the gospel will excite against themselves hostility,all whose interests the gospel threatens will array themselves against it.
4. The falsehood of all such charges against the gospel as that it is revolutionary and destructive, whereas it works its changes by slow degrees and destroys nothing but sin.
5. The glory that will even here irradiate and hereafter crown every faithful servant of Christ.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 6:8. The Biography of Stephen.

I. A devout Christian.Full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.

II. A trusted Deacon.The first elected to the office.

III. An eloquent Preacher.His opponents could not resist the wisdom with which he spake,

IV. A glorified Prisoner.His face shone as it had been the face of an angel.

V. A blessed Martyr.They stoned Stephen, etc. (Act. 7:59).

Act. 6:15. The Face of an Angel.Dante, describing the angels whom he met in the Paradiso, impresses us with their external glory and their spiritual effulgence. Invariably he makes the former a result of the latter. With closer faithfulness to physical science than he dreamed, and building better than he knew he sings (Paradiso, Canto ix., 1319).

Another of those splendours

Approach me, and its will to pleasure me
It signifies by brightening outwardly,
As one delighted to do good;
Became a thing transplendent in my sight,
As a fine ruby smitten by the sun.

Joseph Cooks Monday Lectures, Second Series, p. 148.

Stephens illuminated Face.He had been accused of blaspheming Moses, and lo! the clearness of the face of Moses, a reflection of Gods glory (Act. 7:2), was to be seen on him and vindicated him. A morning beam of the heavenly splendour, in which the teachers of righteousness will eternally shine (Dan. 12:3), surrounded him; and well might he have been regarded as an angel, since, as the angels always behold the face of God, and reflect His glory, so was it granted to him in this hour of witness for encouragement to look, first into the opened mystery of Gods historical glory upon the earth, and then into the opened heaven, and to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Act. 7:55).Besser.

Act. 6:8-15. The Opponents of Stephen.

I. Devout Jews.They were Stephens countrymen and fellow-worshippers, believers in the same God, disciples of the same lawgiver, probably members of the same synagogue. Three arguments which should have caused them to befriend rather than hate Stephen.

II. Defeated controversialists.They could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spake. This should have cautioned them against opposing one who obviously possessed clearer insight than themselves, and one with whom their inmost convictions sided.

III. Unscrupulous calumniators.They suborned men who said (no doubt what Stephens adversaries told them) that Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against GodMoses first and God secondwhich was not true.

IV. Murderous conspirators.Their object in moving the elders and the Scribes was to bring upon their foe the wrath of the Sanhedrim, which they knew would mean arrestment, imprisonment, and perhaps death.

Stephen the Deacon.

I. The central figure of this whole section is St. Stephen. He is introduced into the narrative with the same startling suddenness which we may note in the cases of Barnabas and Elijah. He runs a rapid course, flings all, apostles and every one else, into the shade for a time, and then disappears, exemplifying the saying of inspiration, The first shall be last, and the last first.

II. The union of the words grace and power is significant. It was not the intellect, or the eloquence, or the activity of St. Stephen which made him powerful among the people and crowned his labours with success. It was his abundant grace. Eloquence and learning, active days and laborious nights, are good and necessary things. But these will be utterly useless and ineffective apart from Christ and the power of His grace. To this busy age these words convey a useful warning that the best organisations and schemes will be useless to produce Stephens power, unless Stephens grace be found there as well.

III. This passage is a prophecy and picture of the future in another aspect. The fulness of grace in Stephen wrought powerfully amongst the people. It was the savour of life unto life in some. But in others it was a savour of death unto death, and provoked them to evil deeds, for they suborned men who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.

IV. These words, even through their falsehood, afford a glimpse into the character of St. Stephens preaching. A false accusation need not be necessarily altogether false. In order to be effective it must have some basis of truth. St. Stephen was ripening for heaven more rapidly than the apostles themselves. He was learning more rapidly than St. Peter himself the true spiritual meaning of the Christian scheme. He had taught, in no unambiguous language, the universal character of the gospel and the catholic mission of the Church.

V. We learn how religious zeal can overthrow religion and work out the purpose of evil. Religious zeal, mere party spirit taking the place of real religion, led the Hellenists to suborn men and falsely accuse St. Stephen. They made an idol of the system of Judaism, and forgot its spirit. They worshipped their idol so much that they were ready to break the commandments of God for its sake. How true to life has our own age found this prophetic picture!G. T. Stokes, D.D.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(8) Stephen, full of faith and power.The better MSS. give, full of grace and power.

Did great wonders and miracles.Better, as preserving the familiar combination, wonders and signs.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Stephen Disputes With Hellenist Jews And Is Falsely Accused (6:8-15).

‘And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people.’

Compare here Act 4:33 where the Apostles were said to speak with great grace and power. Stephen possessed similar divine assistance to the Apostles. And through that divine help he wrought great wonders and signs among the people, the wonders and signs which were so much a part of the new inundation of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:19; Act 2:22; Act 2:43; Act 4:30; Act 5:12; Act 8:6; Act 8:13; Act 14:3). It was now apparent that not only had the Apostles laid hands on him, God had also laid hands on him with a special ministry in view.

This might suggest that Christians placed in positions of authority in those early days did expect God also to work through them in these ways. They were seen as adjuncts to their ministry.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Preaching and Martyrdom of Stephen (6:8-7:60).

It is one of the exciting things about serving God that we never know what He is going to do next. In Act 6:1-7 the Apostles had rid themselves of the administrative burden of ‘serving tables’ and dealing with the administration of food to needy Hellenistic Christians, by appointing seven men to perform the task, one of whom was named Stephen. Little did they dream that God would then choose to take Stephen and give him a ministry similar to that of the Apostles. And even less did anyone realise that shortly he would be promoted to glory by way of martyrdom.

Stephen was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian (essentially Greek speaking and previously attendant at synagogues where Greek was basically used) and his ideas and interpretations of the Old Testament were therefore probably more liberal than those of the Hebraic Jewish Christians, although we must not make too much of this for what he would shortly say in his defence was perfectly orthodox.

But it may help to explain why he caused a furore where the Apostles had not. The Hellenistic Jews in general may well have laid less emphasis on the centrality of the Temple and its accompanying ritual, interpreting the Scriptures more allegorically (as Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, certainly did in Alexandria). On the other hand the Apostles, centring their message on Christ, and on what He had come to do and finally accomplish, seemingly otherwise kept common cause with their Jewish brethren. Their present view was of a transformed Judaism, responsive to Jesus Christ. They had not yet considered wider issues.

Stephen appears to have stressed that in Christ ‘the land’ and the Temple had ceased to hold a position of prime importance. Now it was Christ, coming as the Saviour of men, Who was to take central stage. And the thoughts of men should therefore be more centred on Him than on Temple ritual. It was not that he abandoned the Temple completely. It was that he deprecated the hold that it had on people, when he felt that their focus should be centred on Christ. These are the ideas that will shortly come to the fore in his final defence. Men, he declares, should not be looking to the land, or to the Temple, they should be looking to God’s great Deliverer.

Thus as a Hellenist he went to synagogues in Jerusalem which the Apostles had probably little touched, for there were many synagogues of all shades of opinion in Jerusalem. But one thing is certainly clear. His declaration of the faith was powerfully effective.

Up to this point the main opponents of the new born church have been the Sadducees, for the witness of the church appears to have been focussed through the Temple, although they had no doubt taken up opportunities to speak elsewhere. However, on the whole the Pharisees appear to have tolerated them. But now Stephen would take his witness into the synagogues in no uncertain fashion, and there he would be in direct confrontation with the Pharisees. Thus the Sadducean opposition would now be bolstered by the Pharisees.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 6:8-9 . Yet there now came an attack from without, and that against that first-named distinguished overseer for the poor, Stephen, who became the ( Const. ap . ii. 49. 2). The new narrative is therefore not introduced abruptly (Schwanbeck).

is, as in Act 4:33 , to be understood of the divine grace , not as Heinrichs, according to Act 2:47 , would have it taken: gratia, quam apud permultos inierat . This must have been definitely conveyed by an addition.

] power generally, heroism ; not specially: miraculous power , as the following . . . expresses a special exercise of the generally characteristic and .

. .] some of those who belonged to the so-called Libertine-synagogue . The number of synagogues in Jerusalem was great, and is estimated by the Rabbins ( Megill . f. 73, 4; Ketuvoth f. 105, 1) at the fanciful number 480 ( i.e. 4 10 12). Chrysostom already correctly explains the : . They are to be conceived as Jews by birth, who, brought by the Romans (particularly under Pompey) as prisoners of war to Rome, were afterwards emancipated, and had returned home . [Many also remained in Rome, where they had settled on the other side of the Tiber; Sueton. Tiber . 36; Tacit. Ann. ii. 85; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. p. 1014 C.] They and their descendants after them formed in Jerusalem a synagogue of their own, which was named after the class-designation which its originators and possessors brought with them from their Roman sojourn in exile, the synagogue of the freedmen (libertinorum) . This, the usual explanation, for which, however, further historical proof cannot be adduced, is to be adhered to as correct, both on account of the purely Roman name, and because it involves no historical improbability. Grotius, Vitringa, Wolf, and others understand, as also included under it, Italians , who as freedmen had become converts to Judaism. But it is not at all known that such persons, and that in large numbers, were resident in Jerusalem. The Roman designation stands opposed to the view of Lightfoot, that they were Palestinian freedmen , who were in the service of Palestinian masters. Others (see particularly Gerdes in the Miscell. Groning. I. 3, p. 529 ff.) suppose that they were Jews, natives of Libertum. a (problematical) city or district in proconsular Africa. If there was a Libertum (Suidas: ), the Jews from it, of whom no historical trace exists, were certainly not so numerous in Jerusalem as to form a separate synagogue of their own. Conjectures: , [185] Libyans (Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Exo 1 and 2, Clericus, Gothofredus, Valckenaer), and . (Schulthess, de charism. Sp. St. p. 162 ff.).

. .] Likewise two synagogal communities . Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Heumann, and Klos ( Exam, emendatt. Valck. in N. T. p. 48) were no doubt of opinion that by there is meant only one synagogue, which was common to all those who are named. But against this may be urged, as regards the words of the passage, the circumstance that . only suits , and as regards matter of fact , the great number of synagogues in Jerusalem, as well as the circumstance that of the Libertini, Cyrenaeans, etc., there was certainly far too large a body in Jerusalem to admit of them all forming only one synagogue. In Cyrene , the capital of Upper Libya, the fourth part of the inhabitants consisted of Jews (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 1; c. Apion. ii. 4); and in Alexandria two of the five parts into which the city was divided were inhabited by them (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xiv. 10. 1, xix. 5. 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7). Here was also the seat of Jewish-Greek learning, and it was natural that those removing to Jerusalem should bring with them in some measure this learning of the world without, and prosecute it, there in their synagogue. Wieseler, p. 63, renders the first and indeed , so that the Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia, would be designated as a mere part of the so-called Libertine synagogue. But how arbitrary, seeing that in the various other instances of its being used throughout the representation always expresses merely the simple and ! The Synagoga Alexandrinorum is also mentioned in the Talmud ( Megill . f. 73, 4). Winer and Ewald divide the whole into two communities: (1) . and . joined with the Libertines; and (2) the synagogue formed of the Cilician and Asiatic Jews. But against this view the above reasons also militate, especially the , which only suits . The grammatical objection against our view, that the article is not repeated before . (and before .), is disposed of by the consideration, that those belonging to the three synagogues (the Libertine-synagogue, the Cyrenaeans, and the Alexandrians) are conceived together as one hostile category (see Krger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 7; Sauppe and Khner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f.); and the two following synagogal communities are then likewise conceived as such a unity, and represented by the prefixed (Vulg.: “ et eorum qui erant ”). We have thus in our passage five synagogues, to which the belonged, namely, three of Roman and African nationality, and two Asiatic. The two categories the former three together, and the latter two together are represented as the two synagogal circles, from which disputants emerged against Stephen. To the Cilician synagogue Saul doubtless belonged.

Asia is not to be taken otherwise than in Act 2:9 .

] as disputants , Act 9:29 . The had already begun with the rising up ( ), Bernhardy, p. 477 f. Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 444].

[185] See Wetstein, who even considers . as another form ( inflexio ) of the name . The Arm. already has Libyorum .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SECTION V

STEPHEN, ONE OF THE SEVEN, WHO LABORED WITH GREAT POWER AND SUCCESS, IS ACCUSED OF BLASPHEMY; HE VINDICATES HIMSELF IN A POWERFUL DISCOURSE; IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT DISCOURSE HE IS STONED, BUT DIES WITH BLESSED HOPES, A CONQUEROR THROUGH THE NAME OF JESUS.

Act 6:8 Act 7:60

______

A.The Labors of Stephen; Hostile Movements and Accusations of his Enemies; he is brought before the Great Council, and Commanded to Answer the Charges of his Opponents

Act 6:8-15

8 And [But] Stephen, full of faith4 [of grace] and power, did great wonders andmiracles among the people. 9Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them [who were] of Cilicia and of Asia,5 disputing with Stephen. 10And they were not ableto resist the wisdom and the spirit by [Spirit in] which he spake. 11Then they suborned men, which [who] said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words againstMoses, and against God. 12And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon [to] him, and caught [took hold of] him, and brought him tothe council, 13And set up false witnesses, which [who] said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous6 [om. blasphemous] words against this7 [the] holy place, and thelaw: 14For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall [will] destroy this place, and shall [om. shall] change the customs8 which Moses delivered [to] us.15And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the [his face as the] face of an angel.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act 6:8. Stephen did great wonders.The opportunity for working miracles was, without doubt, furnished by his office, which brought him into contact with the poor, the sick, and the suffering. We are here enabled to obtain a view of his official labors, which were so abundantly blessed. We cannot entertain a doubt that he and his colleagues attended to the immediate duties of their office with the utmost assiduity and fidelity, and afforded aid and relief to widows, orphans, and all others who were in distress. But he may have very frequently encountered cases, in which the temporal gifts distributed by him in the name of the church, proved to be totally inadequate. On such occasions this man, who was full of faith and the Spirit (Act 6:5), did not offer mere temporal aid, but exercised his spiritual gifts of prayer and of faith, and brought with him spiritual aid, encouragement and consolation. And the Lord granted him such grace that he wrought miracles, principally, no doubt, in cases of sickness and suffering. We cannot refer [see note 1, above, appended to the text] to men, in the sense of popular favor, as no qualifying term, indicating such a meaning, is connected with it.

Act 6:9. Then there arose disputing with Stephen.Stephen attracted the attention, and, indeed, excited the envy and jealousy of the unbelieving Jews, not only by the wonders and miracles which he wrought, and which won distinction for him, but also by his gifts of knowledge and eloquence, which he employed in bearing witness to Christ. They became excited, addressed him personally, and engaged in discussions or debates () with him. They were Hellenistic Jews, and had previously known Stephen, who was, very probably, a Hellenist himself. The language in this verse [ .. . . . .. . . ] is not free from ambiguity, and has hence given rise to many conflicting explanations. Some interpreters, as Calvin, Bengel, etc., suppose that only one synagogue is meant, to which all the groups here mentioned by name, belonged; but this interpretation can be suggested only when undue stress is laid on the expression , the result of which certainly is, that only one synagogue appears to be mentioned. But the words ., etc., obviously indicate that a well-known distinction existed. Accordingly, Winer (Bibl. Realwrtb. art. Libertiner) and Ewald suppose that two different synagogues are specified, the first, that of the Libertines, the Cyrenian, and Alexandrian Jews; the second, that of the Cilician and Asiatic Jews. Winer, however, [who remarks on this case again, in Gram. N. T., last ed. 19. 5. note 1.Tr.], states elsewhere (Realw. art. Cyrene), that the Cyrenians had a synagogue of their own [in Jerusalem].That interpretation appears to claim the preference with most reason, which enumerates five synagogues [repeating, with de Wette, Hackett, etc., before each of the succeeding four genitives.Tr.]. It is well-known, from statements made in the Talmud, that Jerusalem contained a very large number of synagogues, amounting, according to the Rabbinic writers, to 480. The Talmud specially mentions the synagogue of the Jews who came from Alexandria, in which city about 100,000 Jews resided at that period. It is very probable that the Jews of Cyrene in Upper Libya, where they constituted a fourth part of the population, also had a synagogue of their own in the holy city. When Pompey overran Judea, he carried a vast number of Jews to Rome, as prisoners of war, about B. C. 63; when they were liberated and had returned to Judea, they and their sons [designated libertini, that is, freedmen , without doubt, assembled in their own separate synagogue; the terms employed in the text establish the correctness of this view with great distinctness. (We omit other explanations of the name, as they are all merely conjectural). It is quite as probable that both those Jews who came from Cilicia, a province of Asia Minor, and also those whose original home had been in Asia, that is, the eastern coast of the gean Sea [ch. Act 2:9], in each case, maintained a separate synagogue. The opponents of Stephen, accordingly, belonged to the congregations of five different synagogues, but now collect in two companies, according to the terms of this verse, the first consisting of Jews from Rome and Africa, the second of those who came from Asia Minor. It is probable that Saul was one of the latter, and belonged to the Cilician synagogue. [ch. Act 21:39].

Act 6:10. And they were not able to resist, etc.The sense is, not that they owned that they had failed to sustain their positions, and, that they submitted to the truth, for their subsequent conduct revealed an increased degree of animosity; the meaning is, that they could adduce no arguments possessing any force, in opposition to the wisdom and the Spirit wherewith he spake.[, the Holy Spirit, if not as a person, as an influence. (J. A. Alex.); the Spirit. (Hack.)Tr.]. The word assuredly does not here mean mere Jewish learning [Heinrichs; Kuin.]learning and wisdom are far from being identicalbut denotes that true wisdom which is from above [Jam 3:17], and that fulness of the Spirit, which, according to Act 6:5, was in Stephen.

Act 6:11. Then they suborned men.These Hellenistic men of the synagogue, controlled by a fanatical spirit, resorted to cunning in order to effect the ruin of the man, whose doctrines and principles they could not confute. In order to avoid the charge of being influenced by a revengeful spirit, they no longer continued the contest personally in public, but put forward () other men; they instigated these agents to circulate as widely as possible the charge, that Stephen had uttered blasphemies against Moses, and even against God Himself, and that they had themselves heard him speak those words. Stephens enemies intended to influence public opinion to his disadvantage by these rumors, and also to furnish the magistrates of the people of Israel with an opportunity to institute legal proceedings against him. Both objects were attained. The people and the members of the Sanhedrin were alike aroused (); and this was the first occasion on which the population of the capital city united with the party that was opposed to the Christians. The fact constituted an epoch in the history of the latter.

Act 6:12. Came upon him, and caught him.The proceedings against Stephen were not commenced by the leaders of the Sanhedrin themselves, as in the case of Jesus, but rather originated in a popular tumult. The individuals, however, who had previously disputed with him, and then, by means of their agents, circulated such charges as would naturally inflame the public mind, now engaged personally in the affair. They came to Stephen unexpectedly, possibly at a moment when he was traversing the street on one of his errands of mercy, violently seized his person, and brought him to the Sanhedrin [], of which a special meeting was hastily called.

Act 6:13. And set up false witnesses.These witnesses, who were perhaps hired for the occasion, had previously received definite instructions from the party opposed to Stephen. Were they, strictly speaking, , lying witnesses? Baur and Zeller, who reply in the negative, accuse the narrator of uttering an untruth, in so far as he applies the term to the witnesses, since, as they allege, Stephen had really entertained the opinions, and spoken the words with which he is charged in Act 6:13-14. But the opinion of these critics can certainly derive no support whatever from any remarks occurring in the discourse recorded in the next, chapter. It is, besides, inconceivable per se, that at this early period, a devout Israelitish Christian like Stephen, an honored and trusted member of the primitive congregation, which adhered so faithfully to the temple and the law, could have been impelled by any motive to assail the temple and the law with such violence as this opinion would require us to assume (comp. Baumg. Apg. I. 122, ff.). It is, further, essential that we should compare Act 6:13 with Act 6:14, and carefully observe the material difference which exists between their respective contents. The former contains simply a general charge; the latter supports the charge by presenting evidence respecting certain concrete expressions of the accused party. Stephen is accused in Act 6:13, of perpetually ( ) assailing the temple and the law, that is, of considering it to be his chief employment to argue, in an insulting and blasphemous manner, against the fundamental principles of the Mosaic institutions. (Although after is, in this case, a spurious term, the phrase here denotes, as the context and the usus loq. show (comp. Luk 12:10), that slanderous or blasphemous words are meant). Now this charge is evidently intended to represent Stephen as a man whose sentiments and conduct are all controlled by an active, enduring, irreverent and fanatical hostility to all that is holy and divine in the eyes of every devout Israelite. But no one, not even Baur or Zeller, believes that such was the character of Stephen. And yet those accusers wished to produce that impression. They are, therefore, false witnesses; they are so termed, not because they may have reported any words actually uttered by Stephen, with the malicious design to destroy him (Heinr.), but because, in addition to a positively hostile feeling or a malicious motive, they really pronounced a . For the evidence which the accusers deliver in Act 6:14, in order to substantiate the charge in Act 6:13, and which they represent as derived from their personal knowledge (), does not prove the point to which it refers. We will here lay no stress on the circumstance that this language of Stephen, (which was no doubt employed by him in the course of his debate with the men of the synagogue), was, perhaps, not heard by the witnesses personally, but communicated to them by others, and that, in such a case, they would already deserve the title of false witnesses. But their statement in Act 6:14, (even if we admit that Stephen had used precisely these terms), in the first place, only shows that Stephen had, on a single occasion, but not perseveringly and perpetually, employed offensive expressions; in the second place, it by no means shows that he had indulged in language which insulted and blasphemed that which was divine, as Act 6:11 and Act 6:13 would lead us to expect. The charge may not have been entirely fictitious, but have been suggested by certain terms employed by Stephen; still, it was false, for the words actually chosen by him, were not presented in their proper connection, but were distorted and repeated with exaggerations. [This charge was no doubt true so far as it related to the doctrine, that the new religion, or rather the new form of the church was to supersede the old. Its falsity consisted in the representation of the two as hostile or antagonistic systems, and of the change as one to be effected by coercion or brute force. (J. A. Alexander, ad loc.Tr.].It is obvious that the terms (which betray a bitter and contemptuous spirit,) are not derived from Stephen himself, but are combined by the false witnesses with his words; and, indeed, they do not quote his own words, but report his remarks in sermone obliquo.

Act 6:15. Saw his face an angel.We can easily imagine that the eyes of all who were present, were fixed on the Christian who was accused of such serious offences. But while they gazed, they could discover neither fear nor anxiety depicted on his countenance, even when the devices of his enemies seemed to be successful. His countenance was, on the contrary, lighted up as with an angelic radiance, revealing not only the courage of a man, a divine inspiration, and holy serenity of the soul, but also the brightness of a preternatural light [like that of Moses, Exo 34:29 (J. A. Alex.)]. The language of Luke certainly implies far more than that the countenance of Stephen indicated the utmost tranquillity, insomuch that the spectators involuntarily looked on him with reverence (Kuinoel); it obviously describes an objective, and, indeed, an extraordinary phenomenon. If he had been previously endowed with the Spirit, he now received, in this decisive moment, the anointing of the Spirit of God in a still richer measure. That this divine influence on the soul of the devout witness should have manifested itself externally, and irradiated his countenance with a heavenly light that was visible even to his enemies, cannot surprise us, when we reflect that the spiritual and corporeal here act in unison, and especially, that in the most solemn moments of life, even as at the end of all human history, corporealness is the end of the ways of God.9

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The immediate duties of the office assigned to Stephen, required him to provide for the wants of the poor, and render other services in the external affairs of the church; nevertheless, he found that duties of a spiritual nature also claimed his attention. This result was natural. When the Redeemer is present with his Spirit and his gifts, and when his church, adhering to him in faith and love, and persevering in prayer and supplication, continually receives new grace, all its affairs acquire a spiritual character, and even the care of its external interests assumes the nature of a spiritual office. When the church suffers from any internal disease, and the life that is hid with Christ in God [Col 3:3], has departed, even the office of the ministry of the word sinks to the level of a mere external and mechanical service, an opus operatum and a trade.

2. Stephen was only one of the Seven, not one of the Twelve; he was simply invested with an administrative office, afterwards called the Diaconate, and not with the Apostolate. Still, he received the gift to work wonders and miracles, which had hitherto been confined to the apostles, and was enabled to speak with such wisdom that he contended with the enemies of the faith as successfully as the apostles. Indeed, the gifts which the Lord bestowed upon him, the relentless hostility to which he was exposed, and the martyrdom which closed his career, combine to place him in such a prominent position, that the apostles themselves temporarily recede from the view. And yet the latter are not moved by envy, even in the faintest degree. They were not so completely controlled by lofty conceptions of the dignity of their own office, as to apprehend that it would be imperilled by this circumstance. The Lord himself, and his honor, were of far greater importance in their eyes, than their own office. And when the Redeemer appointed them to be his witnesses, he did not impose any obligation on himself by which he resigned his sovereign authority to impart gifts to others, to breathe his Spirit on others, or to employ additional instruments at his pleasure.

3. The Redeemer had promised his servants that if they should be assailed for his names sake, he would give them such wisdom of speech, and such power in vindicating their course, that their enemies would be unable to resist their words with success; Luk 21:15. He fulfilled this promise with such faithfulness in the case of Stephen, that the opponents of the latter withdrew from the spiritual conflict; they could not resist his wisdom which was from above, and the Spirit by which he spake, and now resolved to ruin him by rousing the passions of men against him through distorted statements of his words and through falsehoods.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act 6:8. And Stephen.Stephen, a star of the first magnitude in the constellation of the seven Deacons. (Starke).He who is faithful in that which is least (the office of a guardian of the poor), is intrusted by the Lord with that which is much (faith, power, miracles).A single servant who is full of grace and the Spirit. accomplishes more in the church, than a hundred servants who are without the Spirit, (ib).Quench not the Spirit! [1Th 5:19]. The apostles placed no impediments in the way of Stephen when he preached and wrought miracles, although these were the appropriate functions of their own office.Full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles.Observe this description of a Christian who is endowed with life. Where true faith exists, power is present; where there is power, wonders will be wrought, that is to say, results will be produced, even if they are not actual miracles like those of Stephen.

Act 6:9. Then there arose certain of the synagogue . disputing with Stephen.The most zealous controversialists and most skilful disputants, who select religious truth as their topic, usually have the least religion and faith of all. (Starke).Men may acquire the learning of the schools, and yet not be taught of God. There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Act 6:10. And they were not able to resist.The disciple is not above his master. Even as the scribes tempted Christ with insidious questions devised by human wisdom, so, too, they approach Stephen with similar weapons. Furnished with all the material which the learning of their schools supplied, they attempt to annihilate Jesus Christ, the hope and the glory of Stephens heart. But this unpretending herald of the cross, entertains no fear, for the weapons of his warfare are not carnal; it is the Spirit of God that speaketh in him. They cannot prevail in a contest with Him! (Leonh. and Sp.).

Act 6:11. Then they suborned men.An evil enterprise will always find abettors. (Starke).Divine truths may easily be perverted; it is not difficult to alter slightly the words of the witnesses of the truth, and then accuse them of blasphemy. (K. H. Rieger).

Act 6:12. And they stirred up the people.This is the first occasion on which we find the people willing to combine with the elders and scribes in hostile movements against the church of Jesus. The apostles in Jerusalem now reach the same turning-point, from which, at an earlier day, the way led to the place where Jesus was crucified. The people had once been very attentive to hear him. [Luk 19:48], but afterwards they cried: Crucify him! (Besser).

Act 6:15. His face as it had been the face of an angel.A joyful heart, which is assured of the grace of God, imparts its brightness to the face. (Starke).The flight of the eagles of God is boldest, when the storm rages most furiously; his stars shine most brilliantly in the darkest nights. (W. Hofacker).God often sends angels to his church; few there are who have eyes to see them; but there are many whose hands are ready to stone them. (Starke).The composure and the cheerful spirit of Stephen were generally noticed; they demonstrated that God manifested his glory in his servants, especially when they suffer, and that the Spirit of glory [1Pe 4:14] rests upon them. We see, moreover, the brightness of his face reflected in the discourse which he delivered; he ascends, like an angel, above all that is human or earthly, speaking and acting with a holy zeal for the honor of God and for the truth, and with a deep concern for the salvation of men.The glory of the countenance of Moses, and the angelic appearance of the face of Stephenillustrative of the language in 2Co 3:6-8 : if the office which slays through the letter, was glorious, how shall not the office which imparts the Spirit be yet more glorious?The angelic brightness revealed in Stephens face: I. It was the light reflected from the face of Jesus Christ, who says to his servants; In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world [Joh 16:33]; II. It was the radiance of his inward assurance of faith, which exclaimed: If God be for us, who can be against us? [Rom 8:31]; III. It was the effulgence of that future glory with which the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared [Rom 8:18].The serenity that appears on the countenance of a believer who has fallen asleep in the Lord: I. It is the departing light of an earthly existence that closes in peace in God; II. It is the dawning light of eternity approaching with the effulgence of heaven.

ON THE WHOLE SECTION.

Stephen, a man full of faith and power: I. In his successful labors; Act 6:8; II. In his severe trials; Act 6:9-14; III. In the heavenly light which shone upon him; Act 6:15.

[Act 6:1. Dissensions in the church: I. The mode in which they originate; (a) the different light in which doctrines, measures, or men, are viewed; (b) personal offence given or taken, in connection with the expression of opinion; (c) the aid of other individuals invoked, and opposite parties formed; II. Their influence; (a) on the individual (his spiritual life, etc.); (b) on the church (character, growth, divine blessing); (c) on the world (false and dangerous views respecting religion); III. The remedy (example of the apostles and the members); (a) Christian humility; (b) Christian love (manifested in words and acts); (c) Christian faith (relying rather on the divine care of the church than on any specific human counsels.) Tr.]

Footnotes:

[4]Act 6:8. is unquestionably to be preferred to [in H; . . . in E.], which was taken from Act 6:5, and is supported by only a few authorities of inferior importance. [Alf., with the later critics, entertains the same view, reading . with A. B. D. Cod. Sin. Vulg. fathers, etc.Tr.]

[5]Act 6:9.Lachmann cancels . , in accordance with A. [D. (corrected)], but the reading is sufficiently attested by the authorities [including Cod. Sin.] in order to be retained; no internal evidence against it exists. [Retained by Tisch. and Alf., with whom Meyer and de Wette concur.Tr.]

[6]Act 6:13. a. [of text. rec.] after is evidently a gloss derived from Act 6:11, and is omitted by the most important MSS. [Found in E. H.; omitted in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin. Vulg., and cancelled by Alf., Lach., Tisch.Tr.]

[7]Act 6:13. b. after is found, it is true, in B (e sil). C., but is probably a later addition, and therefore spurious. [Omitted by A. D. E. H. Cod. Sin. Vulg., and cancelled by Alf., Lach., Tisch.Tr.]

[8]Act 6:14.[The margin of the Engl. vers. offers rites for customs; the latter is preferable. Robinson (Lex.) furnishes, under only the three words: custom, usage, manner. Wahls definitions are: (1) mos, consuetudo; (2) institutum, ritus, and here he cites the present passage. J. A. Alexander (Com. ad loc.) prefers institutions.Tr.]

[9] [Leiblichkeit ist das Ende der Wege Gottes. This saying of the celebrated F. C. Oetinger of Wuertemberg (died Febr. 10, 1782), which is frequently quoted, is explained by Auberlen (the author of the work entitled Die Theosophie Oetingers, 1847), in a biographical sketch in Herzog: Real-Encyk. X. 566 ff. We have only room for the prominent thoughts on which it was founded.

Life is an essential or simplified combination of powers, an intensum, externally a monas, internally a myrias, and is manifested corporeally. Corporealness, (or, to be corporeal) is a reality or perfection, that is, when it is released from the defects adhering to mere terrestrial corporealness, viz., impenetrability, resistance, and gross mixture; this release will be hereafter exemplified in the bodies of risen believers.Christ restored the true life by his death and resurrection, and now his corpus est perfectio spiritus; he will, too, restore all things to their proper (spiritual) corporealness, so that God will dwell in the creature in his glory, and be all in all. In this sense, corporealness is the end of the ways of God.

Oetinger, (who refers to passages like 1Co 15:44, spiritual body, Rom 8:21-23; John, Acts 6., etc.,) regarded the resurrection of the body as the completion of the regeneration (the of Mat 19:28, on which passage see the analogous remarks of Olshausen), or as being, in connection with the new heaven and earth of the kingdom of glory, the final purpose of the revelations and acts of God. There will not only be a blessed world of spirits, at the consummation of all things, but also a glorified corporealness.In the case of Stephen, the author, alluding to Oetingers theory, doubtless intends to imply that an anticipatory glorification of human nature, proceeding from the soul, or incipient influences of the Holy Spirit on the body, already occurred.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. (9) Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. (10) And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. (11) Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. (12) And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, (13) And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: (14) For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. (15) And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

We here enter upon the interesting history of Stephen, the first of the seven brethren, in the government of the Church under the Apostles, and the first martyr in the Church of Christ, after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. It is evident, that Stephen preached, as well as did wonders and miracles among the people; for we read, that those who opposed him, were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit, with which he spake. But the most important point for us to consider is, what blasphemy it was, with which these foes to Christ, and to his people, charged him? I conceive this to be no unimportant point, For if, as I am inclined to believe, Stephen died a martyr to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus, it will throw a light upon this part of the Church’s history, and serve to teach us, that this glorious truth, which is the very foundation of our holy faith, was then, as in modern times it hath since been, what infidelity most revolts at.

If the Reader will gather into one point of view, the several charges before the council brought against Stephen, and. consider them a little attentively, he wilt perceive that the whole together were four in number. First, Blasphemous words against Moses, Secondly, Against God. Thirdly, Blasphemous words against this holy place, meaning most probably, the temple; or, perhaps, the city of Jerusalem, called the holy city in which the temple stood, Mat 27:53 . And, fourthly, Against the law. Now, by analyzing these several and distinct charges, and examining them, one by one, under their respective heads, we shall be enabled to form a clear apprehension of the ground upon which the council acted, when stoning Stephen, according to the Jewish law, for the supposed blasphemy.

And, first, concerning the blasphemous words against Moses. It is, indeed, an extraordinary, and to this time an unheard of accusation, to talk of blasphemy against a man. For nothing can be called blasphemy, except it hath the Lord for its object. Blasphemy, is peculiarly, and specially, a sin against Him. But here was the drift of their resentment. Stephen had said, that the Lord Jesus would change the customs, that is, the rites, which Moses had delivered to the people. Indeed, the Lord had done it. Those rites were only shadowy representations, and Christ himself was the substance ; and as such, the whole of Moses’ institutions, having accomplished the end for which they were originally appointed, did of themselves cease. But, as this doctrine implied, that Moses was the servant of Christ, and consequently God; He who was with the angel, (as he told them in the following chapter,) when speaking to Moses from the bush; (Act 7:38 ) the conclusion became undeniable, that Christ was God; and this they deemed blasphemy. I pray the Reader to turn to Heb 3:5-6 .

The second charge of blasphemy against God, could have been no other than the ascribing divine honors to the Lord Jesus Christ. And if the Reader will in this place, by way of ascertaining more, clearly the matter of fact, anticipate in some measure Stephen’s history, by turning to the close of it, towards the end of the next chapter, (Act 7:56-58 ) he will immediately perceive, by what this faithful servant of the Lord then said, how firm his mind must have been in the belief of Christ’s Godhead. We there find him exclaiming in a rapture of holy joy, and regardless of all around him, that he saw the Lord Jesus in person, as the Shechinah in the Old Testament, which manifested the presence of the Lord, used to appear; and nothing could be more decisive in proof, that Stephen considered Christ as God. Indeed his enemies themselves so interpreted Stephen’s words, and as such, unable to suppress their indignation, they dragged him instantly from before the council, and stoned him with stones till he died. Nothing, surely, can be more full in point, that Stephen died a martyr to the profession of the Godhead of Christ. See Lev 14:23Lev 14:23 ; 1Ki 21:13 ; Deu 17:2-7 .

For the third of those charges against Stephen, namely, blasphemous words in relation to the temple, or the city, we may consider this as in some degree included in the former, being by a necessary consequence implicated in it. For, if the Lord Jesus would destroy the temple, it implied the divinity of his nature in the deed. Indeed Christ had predicted the destruction of it, Mat 24:1-2 . But then it was for rejecting him, Luk 19:44 . And, therefore, here also was an indirect acknowledgment of Stephens faith in the Godhead of the Lord Jesus.. Stephen, as a Jew, would have been equally shocked, as those carnal Jews were, at the idea of any one destroying their beloved city and temple. But Christ as God, in the faith of Stephen, not only reconciled that, and every other event which the Lord appointed, but gave him an holy joy, in contemplating the sovereignty of Jesus.

And, lastly, for the fourth of those charges; blasphemous words against the law; the very introduction of the Gospel, in superseding the law, became blasphemy in the extreme in the eyes of a Jew. And as none but He who gave the law could have authority to do away the law, by so much, while Stephen asserted that Christ would change the customs, which Moses delivered; plainly he asserted also, that Christ was God. So that each, and everyone of those charges, to which they annexed the crime of blasphemy, most evidently prove their views of the faith of Stephen. He stood forth a firm champion for the Godhead of Christ; and it was for this supposed blasphemy, for which he was stoned. Indeed, in the very moment of his death, he committed his soul into the hands of the Lord Jesus as God. Lord Jesus! (said he,) receive my spirit? Act 7:59 .

I stay not to notice, (though highly meriting our notice, in respect to the Lord’s tender regard to his faithful servant,) what is said in the close of this chapter, of the bright countenance of Stephen, like an angel, which all in the council, it is said, beheld. I cannot speak upon it with any decision. As such, I rather decline any observations, than to run the hazard of speaking presumptuously. But, I would just humbly ask, might it not have been similar to the case of Moses, when in the Mount, Exo 34:29-30 . And, if so, were not both instances, Moses and Stephen, from the same Lord Jesus? But, as God the Holy Ghost hath not been pleased to record anything further than the fact itself, it becomes us not to enquire. But of one point we are taught, and in which we cannot err. Stephen was here engaged in his Lord’s cause; and for the testimony of Jesus, he was brought before the council. Hence Christ’s promise, Luk 21:12-15 . Very blessed is it, therefore, to discover, as in the case of Stephen, that a suited grace is always dispensed, as the circumstances of the Lord’s tried ones shall require. As thy day is, thy strength shall be. Reader! let you and I take occasion from this view of Stephen, to calculate upon it for every hour of need, and especially like his, for the hour of death. Oh! for the Lord in that season to be eminently present, as he assuredly will, with all his re deemed. Lord! lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon my soul! that when I awake up, I shall be satisfied with thy likeness, and behold thy face in righteousness!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Ver. 8. And Stephen, full of faith ] He “using the office of a deacon well, did purchase to himself a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus,” 1Ti 3:13 . A diligent man stays not long in a low place.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

8 .] This is the first instance of any, not an Apostle , working signs and wonders. The power was perhaps conferred by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands; though, that having been for a special purpose merely, and the working miracles being a fulfilment of the promise, Mar 16:17-18 , to all believers , I should rather refer the power to the eminence of Stephen’s faith .

, divine grace (not ‘favour with the people’): the effects of which, the miracles, were called .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 6:8 . , but , R.V. Vulgate, gratia = divine grace, Act 18:27 , not merely favour with the people the word might well include, as in the case of our Lord, the which fell from his lips (Luk 5:22 ). On the word as characteristic of St. Luke and St. Paul, see Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium , pp. 28, 96; in the other Gospels it only occurs three times; cf. Joh 1:14 ; Joh 1:16-17 . See Plummer’s note on the word in St. Luke, l. c. : not merely power in the sense of courage, heroism, but power to work miracles, supernatural power, cf. Act 8:13 and Luk 5:17 . That the word also means spiritual power is evident from Act 6:10 . , “was doing,” imperfect, during Stephen’s career of grace and power the attack was made; notice imperfect combined with aorist, , see Rendall’s note. In Act 6:8 Spitta sees one of the popular legendary notices of his source B. St. Stephen is introduced as the great miracle-worker, who is brought before the Sanhedrim, because in Act 5:17 , a parallel incident in , the Apostles were also represented as miracle-doers and brought before the same assembly; it would therefore seem that the criticism which can only see in the latter part of the Acts, in the miracles ascribed to St. Paul, a repetition in each case of the miracles assigned in the former part to St. Peter, must now be further utilised to account for any points of likeness between the career of St. Stephen and the other leaders of the Church. But nowhere is it said that Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrim on account of his miracles, and even if so, it was quite likely that the of the Sanhedrim would be stirred by such manifestations as on the former occasion in chap. 5.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Acts

FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT

Act 6:3 , Act 6:5 , Act 6:8 .

I have taken the liberty of wrenching these three fragments from their context, because of their remarkable parallelism, which is evidently intended to set us thinking of the connection of the various characteristics which they set forth. The first of them is a description, given by the Apostles, of the sort of man whom they conceived to be fit to look after the very homely matter of stifling the discontent of some members of the Church, who thought that their poor people did not get their fair share of the daily ministration. The second and third of them are parts of the description of the foremost of these seven men, the martyr Stephen. In regard to the first and second of our three fragmentary texts, you will observe that the cause is put first and the effect second. The ‘deacons’ were to be men ‘full of the Holy Ghost,’ and that would make them ‘full of wisdom.’ Stephen was ‘full of faith,’ and that made him ‘full of the Holy Ghost.’ Probably the same relation subsists in the third of our texts, of which the true reading is not, as it appears in our Authorised Version, ‘full of faith and power,’ but as it is given in the Revised Version, ‘full of grace and power.’ He was filled with grace-by which apparently is here meant the sum of the divine spiritual gifts-and therefore he was full of power. Whether that is so or not, if we link these three passages together, as I have taken the liberty of doing, we get a point of view appropriate for such a day [Footnote: Preached on Whit Sunday.] as this, when all that calls itself Christendom is commemorating the descent of the Holy Spirit, and His abiding influence upon the Church. So I simply wish to gather together the principles that come out of these three verses thus concatenated.

I. We may all, if we will, be full of the Holy Spirit.

If there is a God at all, there is nothing more reasonable than to suppose that He can come into direct contact with the spirits of the men whom He has made. And if that Almighty God is not an Almighty indifference, or a pure devil-if He is love-then there is nothing more certain than that, if He can touch and influence men’s hearts towards goodness and His own likeness, He most certainly will.

The probability, which all religion recognises, and in often crude forms tries to set forth, and by superstitious acts to secure, is raised to an absolute certainty, if we believe that Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Truth, speaks truth to us about this matter. For there is nothing more certain than that the characteristic which distinguishes Him from all other teachers, is to be found not only in the fact that He did something for us on the Cross, as well as taught us by His word; but that in His teaching He puts in the forefront, not the prescriptions of our duty, but the promise of God’s gift; and ever says to us, ‘Open your hearts and the divine influences will flow in and fill you and fit you for all goodness.’ The Spirit of God fills the human spirit, as the mysterious influence which we call life permeates and animates the whole body, or as water lies in a cup.

Consider how that metaphor is caught up, and from a different point of view is confirmed, in regard to the completeness which it predicates, by other metaphors of Scripture. What is the meaning of the Baptist’s saying, ‘He shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost and fire’? Does that not mean a complete immersion in, and submersion under, the cleansing flood? What is the meaning of the Master’s own saying, ‘Tarry ye. . . till ye be clothed with power from on high’? Does not that mean complete investiture of our nakedness with that heavenly-woven robe? Do not all these emblems declare to us the possibility of a human spirit being charged to the limits of its capacity with a divine influence?

We do not here discuss questions which separate good Christian people from one another in regard of this matter. My object now is not to lay down theological propositions, but to urge upon Christian men the acquirement of an experience which is possible for them. And so, without caring to enter by argument on controversial matters, I desire simply to lay emphasis upon the plain implication of that word, ‘ filled with the Holy Ghost.’ Does it mean less than the complete subjugation of a man’s spirit by the influence of God’s Spirit brooding upon him, as the prophet laid himself on the dead child, lip to lip, face to face, beating heart to still heart, limb to limb, and so diffused a supernatural life into the dead? That is an emblem of what all you Christian people may have if you like, and if you will adopt the discipline and observe the conditions which God has plainly laid down.

That fulness will be a growing fulness, for our spirits are capable, if not of infinite, at any rate of indefinite, expansion, and there is no limit known to us, and no limit, I suppose, which will ever be reached, so that we can go no further-to the possible growth of a created spirit that is in touch with God, and is having itself enlarged and elevated and ennobled by that contact. The vessel is elastic, the walls of the cup of our spirit, into which the new wine of the divine Spirit is poured, widen out as the draught is poured into them. The more a man possesses and uses of the life of God, the more is he capable of possessing and the more he will receive. So a continuous expansion in capacity, and a continuous increase in the amount of the divine life possessed, are held out as the happy prerogative and possibility of a Christian soul.

This Stephen had but a very small amount of the clear Christian knowledge that you and I have, but he was leagues ahead of most Christian people in regard to this, that he was ‘filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Brethren, you can have as much of that Spirit as you want. It is my own fault if my Christian life is not what the Christian lives of some of us, I doubt not, are. ‘Filled with the Holy Spirit’! rather a little drop in the bottom of the cup, and all the rest gaping emptiness; rather the fire died down, Pentecostal fire though it be, until there is scarcely anything but a heap of black cinders and grey ashes in your grate, and a little sandwich of flickering flame in one corner; rather the rushing mighty wind died down into all but a dead calm, like that which afflicts sailing-ships in the equatorial regions, when the thick air is deadly still, and the empty sails have not strength even to flap upon the masts; rather the ‘river of the water of life’ that pours ‘out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb,’ dried up into a driblet.

That is the condition of many Christian people. I say not of which of us. Let each man settle for himself how that may be. At all events here is the possibility, which may be realised with increasing completeness all through a Christian man’s life. We may be filled with the Holy Spirit.

II. If we are ‘full of faith’ we shall be filled with the Spirit.

That is the condition as suggested by one of our texts-’a man full of faith,’ and therefore ‘of the Holy Ghost.’ Now, of course, I believe, as I suppose all people who have made any experience of their own hearts must believe, that before a soul exercises confidence in Jesus Christ, and passes into the household of faith, there have been playing upon it the influences of that divine Comforter whose first mission is to ‘convince the world of sin.’ But between such operations as these, which I believe are universally diffused, wheresoever the Word of God and the message of salvation are proclaimed-between such operations as these, and those to which I now refer, whereby the divine Spirit not only operates upon, but dwells in, a man’s heart, and not only brings conviction to the world of sin, there is a wide gulf fixed; and for all the hallowing, sanctifying, illuminating and strength-giving operations of that divine Spirit, the pre-requisite condition is our trust. Jesus Christ taught us so, in more than one utterance, and His Apostle, in commenting on one of the most remarkable of His sayings on this subject, says, ‘This spake He concerning the Holy Spirit which they that believed in Him were to receive.’ Faith is the condition of receiving that divine influence. But what kind of faith? Well, let us put away theological words. If you do not believe that there is any such influence to be got, you will not get it. If you do not want it, you will not get it. If you do not expect it, you will not get it. If professing to believe it, and to wish it, and to look for it, you are behaving yourself in such a way as to show that you do not really desire it, you will never get it. It is all very well to talk about faith as the condition of receiving that divine Spirit. Do not let us lose ourselves in the word, but try to translate the somewhat threadbare expression, which by reason of its familiarity produces little effect upon some of us, and to turn it into non-theological English. It just comes to this,-if we are simply trusting ourselves to Jesus Christ our Lord, and if in that trust we do believe in the possibility of even our being filled with the divine Spirit, and if that possibility lights up a leaping flame of desire in our hearts which aspires towards the possession of such a gift, and if belief that our reception of that gift is possible because we trust ourselves to Jesus Christ, and longing that we may receive it, combine to produce the confident expectation that we shall, and if all of these combine to produce conduct which neither quenches nor grieves that divine Guest, then, and only then, shall we indeed be filled with the Spirit.

I know of no other way by which a man can receive God into his heart than by opening his heart for God to come in. I know of no other way by which a man can woo-if I may so say-the Divine Lover to enter into his spirit than by longing that He would come, waiting for His coming, expecting it, and being supremely blessed in the thought that such a union is possible. Faith, that is trust, with its appropriate and necessary sequels of desire and expectation and obedience, is the completing of the electric circuit, and after it the spark is sure to come. It is the opening of the windows, after which sunshine cannot but flood the chamber. It is the stretching out of the hand, and no man that ever, with love and longing, lifted an empty hand to God, dropped it still empty. And no man who, with penitence for his own act, and trust in the divine act, lifted blood-stained and foul hands to God, ever held them up there without the gory patches melting away, and becoming white as snow. Not ‘all the perfumes of Araby’ can sweeten those bloody hands. Lift them up to God, and they become pure. Whosoever wishes that he may, and believes that he shall, receive from Christ the fulness of the Spirit, will not be disappointed. Brethren, ‘Ye have not because ye ask not.’ ‘If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,’ shall not ‘your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?’

III. Lastly, if we are filled with the Spirit we shall be ‘full of wisdom, grace, and power.’

The Apostles seemed to think that it was a very important business to look after a handful of poor widows, and see that they had their fair share in the dispensing of the modest charity of the half-pauper Jerusalem church, when they said that for such a purely secular thing as that a man would need to be ‘full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.’ Surely, something a little less august might have served their turn to qualify men for such a task! ‘Wisdom’ here, I suppose, means practical sagacity, common sense, the power of picking out an impostor when she came whining for a dole. Very commonplace virtues! -but the Apostles evidently thought that such everyday operations of the understanding as these were not too secular and commonplace to owe their origin to the communication to men of the fulness of the Holy Spirit.

May we not take a lesson from that, that God’s great influences, when they come into a man, do not concern themselves only with great intellectual problems and the like, but that they will operate to make him more fit to do the most secular and the most trivial things that can be put into his hand to do? The Holy Ghost had to fill Stephen before he could hand out loaves and money to the widows in Jerusalem.

And do you not think that your day’s work, and your business perplexities, come under the same category? Perhaps the best way to secure understanding of what we ought to do, in regard to very small and secular matters, is to keep ourselves very near to God, with the windows of our hearts opened towards Jerusalem, that all the guidance and light that can come from Him may come into us. Depend upon it, unless we have God’s guidance in the trivialities of life, ninety per cent., ay! and more, of our lives will be without God’s guidance; because trivialities make up life. And unless my Father in heaven can guide me about what we, very mistakenly, call ‘secular’ things, and what we very vulgarly call trivial things, His guidance is not worth much. The Holy Ghost will give you wisdom for to-morrow, and all its little cares, as well as for the higher things, of which I am not going to speak now, because they do not come within my text.

‘Full of grace,’-that is a wide word, as I take it. If, by our faith, we have brought into our hearts that divine influence, the Spirit of God does not come empty-handed, but He communicates to us whatsoever things are lovely and of good report, whatsoever things are fair and honourable, whatsoever things in the eyes of men are worthy to be praised, and by the tongues of men have been called virtue. These things will all be given to us step by step, not without our own diligent co-operation, by that divine Giver. Effort without faith, and faith without effort, are equally incomplete, and the co-operation of the two is that which is blessed by God.

Then the things which are ‘gracious,’ that is to say, given by His love, and also gracious in the sense of partaking of the celestial beauty which belongs to all virtue, and to all likeness in character to God, these things will give us a strange, supernatural power amongst men. The word is employed in my third text, I presume, in its narrow sense of miracle-working power, but we may fairly widen it to something much more than that. Our Lord once said, when He was speaking about the gift of the Holy Spirit, that there were two stages in its operation. In the first, it availed for the refreshment and the satisfying of the desires of the individual; in the second it became, by the ministration of that individual, a source of blessing to others. He said, ‘If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink,’ and then, immediately, ‘He that believeth on Me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.’ That is to say, whoever lives in touch with God, having that divine Spirit in his heart, will walk amongst men the wielder of an unmistakable power, and will be able to bear witness to God, and move men’s hearts, and draw them to goodness and truth. The only power for Christian service is the power that comes from being clothed with God’s Spirit. The only power for self-government is the power that comes from being clothed with God’s Spirit. The only power which will keep us in the way that leads to life, and will bring us at last to the rest and the reward, is the power that comes from being clothed with God’s Spirit.

I am charged to all who hear me now with this message. Here is a gift offered to you. You cannot pare and batter at your own characters so as to make them what will satisfy your own consciences, still less what will satisfy the just judgment of God; but you can put yourself under the moulding influences of Christ’s love. Dear brethren, the one hope for dead humanity, the bones very many and very dry, is that from the four winds there should come the breath of God, and breathe in them, and they shall live, ‘an exceeding great army.’ Forget all else that I have been saying now, if you like, but take these two sentences to your hearts, and do not rest till they express your own personal experience; If I am to be good I must have God’s Spirit within me. If I am to have God’s Spirit within me, I must be ‘full of faith.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 6:8-15

8And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 9But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. 10But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” 12And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council. 13They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; 14for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” 15And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel.

Act 6:8 “full of grace and power” “Full of grace” refers to the blessing of God on his life and ministry. See special Topic at Act 5:17.

This term “power” relates to the next phrase, “performing great signs and wonders.”

“was performing great wonders and signs” This is an imperfect tense (like Act 6:7). This possibly occurred before his choice as one of the Seven. Stephen’s gospel message was continually corroborated by his person (i.e., full of grace) and power (i.e., signs and wonders).

Act 6:9 “some men from. . .some from” There is the question concerning how one interprets how many groups rose up against Stephen.

1. one synagogue (men from all countries listed)

2. two synagogues

a. of Jews from Cyrenia and Alexandria

b. of Jews from Cilicia and Asia (Paul was from Cilicia)

3. one synagogue, but two groups

4. five separate synagogues

The Greek genitive masculine plural article (tn) is repeated twice.

“from what is called” The reason for this phrase is that the term “freedman” is a Latin word; therefore, it had to be interpreted for clarity. Apparently these were Jews who had been taken into foreign lands as slaves (military or economic), but had now returned to Palestine as freedmen, but still Koine Greek was their first language.

Act 6:10 Not only was Stephen’s gospel message confirmed by power signs, but apparently it was logically persuasive. Acts 7 is an example of his preaching.

“the Spirit” In the Greek text there is no way to distinguish capitals; therefore, this is the interpretation of the translators. A capital “S” would refer to the Holy Spirit, a small “s” to the human spirit (KJV, NRSV footnote, REB, cf. Act 7:59; Act 17:16; Act 18:25; Rom 1:9; Rom 8:16; 1Co 2:11; 1Co 5:4; 1Co 16:18; 2Co 2:13; 2Co 7:13; 2Co 12:18; Gal 6:18; Php 4:23). This may be an allusion to Pro 20:27.

See SPECIAL TOPIC: SPIRIT (PNEUMA) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT at Act 2:2.

Act 6:11 “they secretly induced men to say” The term “induced” can mean (1) to bribe (cf. Louw and Nida, Lexicon, vol. 1, pp. 577-578) or (2) to scheme secretly (cf. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 843). This is the same technique used against Jesus (cf. Mat 26:61) and Paul (cf. Act 21:28). Their charge was a violation of Exo 20:7, which carried the death penalty.

“We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses” Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 answers this charge. Whether Acts 7 was typical of Stephen’s gospel preaching or a special sermon meant to answer this specific charge is uncertain, but Stephen probably used the OT often to assert Jesus’ Messiahship.

“and against God” These Jews put God after Moses! Their very sentence structure reveals the perception problem. Moses’ Law had become ultimate.

Act 6:12 “the elders and the scribes. . .the Council” The phrase “elders and scribes” is often a shortened designation for the members of the Sanhedrin, which is referred to in this context by the term “the Council.” It was the religious authority of the Jewish nation in the Roman period before A.D. 70. It was made up of

1. the High Priest(s) and his family

2. local wealthy land owners and civic leaders

3. local scribes

It totaled seventy leaders from the Jerusalem area. See Special Topic: The Sanhedrin at Act 4:5.

Act 6:13 “this man” This is a Semitic way to show contempt. This phrase is often used of Jesus.

“speaks against this holy place and the Law” This phrase is an extension of the charge in Act 6:11. This may refer to Stephen’s affirmation of Jesus’ words about the Temple’s destruction recorded in Luk 19:44-48 (also Mar 13:2), or Jesus’ threat in Mat 26:61; Mat 27:40; Mar 14:58; Mar 15:29; Joh 2:19 (cf. Act 6:14). Jesus saw Himself as the “new Temple,” the new center of worship, the new meeting place of God and humanity (cf. Mar 8:31; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:34). God’s judgment was coming on Herod’s building.

Stephen’s preaching about a full and free forgiveness in Jesus was probably the source of “speaks against the Law.” The gospel message reduces “the Mosaic Covenant” to a historical witness instead of a means of salvation (cf. Galatians 3 and the NT book of Hebrews).

For first century Jews this was radical teaching, blasphemy! This truly departs from a typical OT understanding of monotheism, salvation, and the unique place of Israel. The NT has a radical reoriented focus (i.e., Jesus not Israel, grace not human merit).

Act 6:14 In a sense their charges were true! These two charges were designed to stir up both the Sadducees (i.e., “destroy this place”) and the Pharisees (i.e., “alter the customs which Moses handed down”).

“this Nazarene, Jesus” See Special Topic at Act 2:22.

Act 6:15 “fixing their gaze on him” This is a literary device often used by Luke. It denotes uninterrupted attention (cf. Luk 4:20; Luk 22:56; Act 1:10; Act 3:4; Act 3:12; Act 6:15; Act 7:55; Act 10:4; Act 11:6; Act 13:9; Act 14:9; Act 23:1).

“his face like the face of an angel” This may have been similar to

1. Moses’ face glowing after visiting with YHWH (cf. Exo 34:29-35, 2Co 3:7)

2. Jesus’ face and body glowing during His transfiguration (cf. Mat 17:2; Luk 9:29)

3. the messenger angel of Dan 10:5-6

This was a way of metaphorically denoting one who had been in the presence of God.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

faith. The texts read “grace”. App-184.

power. App-172.

wonders. App-176.

miracles = signs. App-176.

people. See note on Act 2:47.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

8.] This is the first instance of any, not an Apostle, working signs and wonders. The power was perhaps conferred by the laying on of the Apostles hands; though, that having been for a special purpose merely, and the working miracles being a fulfilment of the promise, Mar 16:17-18, to all believers, I should rather refer the power to the eminence of Stephens faith.

, divine grace (not favour with the people): the effects of which, the miracles, were called .

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 6:8. , but Stephen) Stephen, though appointed for the administration of outward concerns, yet also discharges spiritual functions. In a sound state of the Church, all things tend to rise upwards: in a diseased state of it, all things verge downwards, towards deterioration.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 6:8-15

GOSPEL PREACHED IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA

Act 6:8 to Act 8:25

STEPHEN ARRESTED AND TRIED

Act 6:8-15

8 And Stephen, full of grace and power,-Stephen was described as a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit when he was selected; here he is described as being full of grace and power. Grace is used here in the sense of favor with God; power does not merely mean strength and fortitude, but some unusual power, enabling him to be the instrument of doing great wonders or miracles among the people. It is thought that Stephen was a Grecian Jew, who had accepted Christ; he worked great wonders and signs among the people.

9 But there arose certain of them-This verse has confused many commentators, and given them no little trouble. The synagogue of the Libertines were the Jews who were one time slaves, but had been given their liberty. Some think that they were merely Jews of Rome, who had been taken there as captives by Pompey. Libertines comes from the Latin which means freedman, or the son of a freedman. It is said that there were two hundred eighty synagogues in Jerusalem; these places of worship and study were in all the cities of later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem-Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicia, and Asia. There were probably enough Hellenists in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. Cyrene was in Africa, about halfway between Carthage and Alexandria; it contained a large number of Jews, who constituted one-fourth of its entire population. (Mar 15:21; Act 13:1.) Alexandria was the capital of Egypt, and was founded by Alexander the Great. In no city save Jerusalem were there so many Jews, nor had they so much power anywhere out of Palestine; the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made at Alexandria for Jews there. Cilicia was at the southeast corner of what is now called Asia Minor; it contained a large number of Jews; Asia in the New Testament always means the northwest corner of Asia Minor, which had Ephesus for its capital. Stephen engaged all of these synagogues in controversy about Christ.

10 And they were not able to withstand the wisdom-Stephen was full of grace and power” and representatives of these synagogues were unable to meet his arguments. He spoke with such fearlessness, clearness of argument, understanding of the prophecy, and power of the Spirit that his speech was irresistible.

11 Then they suborned men, who said,-Suborned is from hupoballo, which originally meant to put under like a carpet, to bring men under ones control by suggestion or money. Here it means that they put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. These men for money or for some wicked motive bore witness that they had heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. They brought the same accusation against Christ. (Mat 26:65; Mar 2:7.) Punishment for blasphemy against God was death by stoning. (Lev 24:16; Deu 13:6-10.) They charged Stephen with blaspheming Moses, and concluded their charge that he had blasphemed God.

12-13 And they stirred up the people,-The original, sunek- inesan, means they shook the people together like an earthquake. The wrangling Libertines and the others of verse 9 were the leaders of this mob against Stephen; with the testimony of these false witnesses they stirred up the people; the elders and the scribes rushed upon Stephen and brought him into the council. After Stephen was brought into the presence of the council, again they set up false witnesses who testified that this man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law. They enlarged upon the testimony that was first borne; this time they add that Stephen not only blasphemed Moses and God, but that he spoke words against this holy place, meaning Jerusalem, or the temple. They made wild charges against Stephen that he had spoken against the law and the temple; it is supposed that they had reference to what Stephen had spoken in their synagogues.

14 for we have heard him say,-Probably Stephen had warned the people that if they persisted in their opposition to Jesus their city and temple would be destroyed. Jesus himself had made declarations of the same import. (Mat 26:61; Luk 19:41-44.) They perverted what Jesus had said, and now they put a wrong construction on what Stephen says. Jesus had predicted the destruction of the temple, but it was to be done by the Gentiles. The enemies of Stephen were unable to meet his arguments, and they resorted to violent means; this was a confession that they could not withstand his arguments. Their charges were false, and they proceeded upon false accusations.

15 And all that sat in the council,-Probably Saul of Tarsus sat in this council with others and saw the face of Stephen shine as though it had been the face of an angel. His face was lighted up with divine radiance. The members of the council literally gazed upon him as if they had seen the face of an angel. Even his enemies saw his face as if it were the face of an angel, but they were too wicked to turn from their evil course. The face of Moses shone in a similar way when he came down from the mountain. (Exo 34:30; 2Co 3:7.) We do not know where Peter and John were at this time; it seems that Stephen stood alone before the Sanhedrin as did Jesus; however, he was not alone, for he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (Act 7:56.) There was little that Peter and John could do at this time; Gamaliel did not interpose this time, for the Pharisees were behind the charges against Stephen.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 6

What was the numerical condition of the disciples now?

Tell what arose.

Who brought up the murmuring?

State difference between these and the Hebrews.

Who were being neglected?

In what circumstance was this claimed to be done?

Refer to the origin of this service.

Who are meant by “the twelve”?

What did they call?

What did they say would not be reasonable?

What clamor seemed to suggest such a neglect?

To what does “serve” refer in verse two?

Explain what would be unreasonable about this.

Who were to do the “looking out”?

How many men were to be selected?

Of what kind of reputation?

To be full of what?

From among whom must this selection be made?

Would these all be Christians?

Might there be some not having the Spirit?

Was possession of it necessary to being a Christian?

Or was it any personal advantage to possess it?

Why should it be required in this case?

Who were to do the selecting?

Who were to do the appointing?

What opportunity would this leave for the apostles?

How was the proposition received by the people?

Name two of the men selected.

Call you call them deacons by biblical authority?

Before whom were the seven men set?

Tell the ceremony the apostles performed.

What was conferred by laying on of apostles hands?

What happened to the word of God?

Does his mean additional revelation?

What was multiplied?

Tell what special class furnished obedience.

How many priests could there be at one time?

Which of the seven is now introduced?

Of what is he said to be full?

What did he do?

Was this done for a select few?

Did he meet with any opposition?

What use is made of the word “synagogue”?

Name the classes arrayed before Stephen.

What were they doing with him?

In the dispute which was victor?

State the means with which he disputed.

How had he obtained these means?

In what manner did they secure the men?

State what they testified.

Name the three classes they stirred up.

What did they set up?

Tell what they accused against Stephen.

Where did they claim to get their information?

What saying of Jesus did they pervert?

State what Jesus really meant.

Was the charge disquieting to Stephen?

In the hearing how was his countenance?

By whom was this fact observed?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

20. STEPHEN – A FAITHFUL SERVANT

Act 6:8-15

Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew, a Jew by birth, but one born in Greece. The apostles were all Galileans. They were, in the eyes of men, a crude, uneducated rabble of fishermen and tax-collectors. When Peter and John stood before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4, they were perceived to be “unlearned and ignorant men.” But Stephen was a preacher of a different kind. He was from another culture. He was a man of learning, education, and refinement. He was a man of rank and reputation. Some of the historians tell us that, like Saul of Tarsus, (before whom he boldly defended the gospel of Christ {Act 7:58}), Stephen was trained at the feet of Gamaliel. As we study the history of his death, we learn the dominate character of his life. Stephen was a faithful man, faithful to the gospel, faithful to the church of God, faithful to Christ, faithful unto death. He is an example of faithfulness, held up for all who would honor God to follow (Heb 13:7). Here are four lessons set before us by God the Holy Spirit in this portion of His Word.

First, in Act 6:8 we learn that FAITHFULNESS IS THE ONE THING GOD REQUIRES OF HIS SERVANTS AND THE ONE THING GOD HONORS IN HIS SERVANTS. First, Stephen served God as a member of his church, then as a deacon, then as a gospel preacher. As he had been faithful and diligent in serving tables he was faithful in preaching the gospel. He was a man with uncommon gifts, talents, and abilities. Yet, he thought it was an honor to serve as a deacon in God’s church, an honor to distribute food to the poor. Stephen used the office of a deacon well and thereby purchased to himself a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus (1Ti 3:13).

God’s people are his servants in this world. It matters not what our service is, where our service is, or who is aware of our service. The only thing that matters is that we faithfully serve our God (1Co 4:2). Be faithful in the place of your calling (1Co 7:20-23), in the work God has given you to do, and with the possessions God has trusted to your hands (Pro 3:9-10). Honor God in all things and with all things, and he will honor you (1Sa 2:30). There is much that you cannot do; but, by the grace of God, you can be faithful (Mat 13:12; Luk 16:10).

Stephen was a man “full of faith.” That is what the word faithful means, “full of faith.” He believed God. He knew and believed the Word of God, trusted the Son of God, obeyed the will of God, and found contentment with the providence of God. Because he was full of faith, he was “full of power.” He preached the gospel, taught the people, and defended the truth of God with power, boldness, and courage. Faith makes naturally timid men courageous and bold. And the confidence of faith makes gospel preachers powerful. The man who believes what he preaches, preaches with power. Being full of faith and power, Stephen “did great wonders and miracles among the people.” In this way God confirmed his work. You can be certain that if God sends a man to preach the gospel, he will confirm that man as his messenger and confirm his word from that man in the hearts of his people.

Secondly, read Act 6:9-10 and know that EVERY WORD SPOKEN FOR GOD AND EVERY WORK DONE FOR GOD ACCOMPLISHES ITS PURPOSE. Saul of Tarsus was probably the chief spokesman of those with whom Stephen was disputing. Tarsus was in Cilicia. And Saul was present at this time (Act 7:58). Though Stephen convinced none, though none were converted at the time, though none believed the gospel, though the preacher himself was stoned to death, this faithful servant of God had successfully accomplished what God sent him to do. Only eternity will tell, but I suspect that Stephen’s sermon never stopped ringing in Saul’s ears, until he found himself in the dust crying, “What wilt thou have me to do, Lord?”

Two things and two things alone determine the success of any man’s or any church’s labors for the glory of God and the souls of men: The purpose of God and the power of God (Isa 55:11; 2Co 2:15-16; 2Co 3:5-6; 2Co 4:7). We are entirely dependent upon God! If we are God’s servants, doing God’s service, failure is an impossibility. No one serves God in vain (1Co 15:58). Sometimes a man preaches one sermon in the power of the Spirit and thousands are saved, as on the day of Pentecost. Sometimes a man preaches thousands of sermons in the power of the Spirit before one sinner is saved, as was the case with the missionary Adroniram Judson in Burma. Sometimes the preacher is killed and the one God saves turns out to have been one of his murderers, as was the case here. God does his will, even when he obscures it from sight (Pro 16:33).

Thirdly, Act 6:11-14 demonstrate the fact that THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST IS OFFENSIVE TO MEN. When these religious men were convinced that Stephen’s doctrine was the truth of God revealed in Holy Scripture, when they could not resist his arguments, they still would not yield to the claims of Christ. Instead, they hired false witnesses to twist and pervert Stephen’s words.

Nothing has changed. Until a sinner’s heart is changed by the regenerating grace of God, he will not receive the gospel of the grace of God. Salvation by grace, through the merits of a crucified Substitute, received by faith alone, without works is both foolishness (1Co 1:22-25) and offensive to him (Gal 5:11). It offends his pride, his religious notions, his love of self, and his self-righteousness. Any man who boldly declares the gospel of Christ to lost, unbelieving religionists will be marked by them as a hard man and a bitter enemy (Gal 4:16). When the pearls of the gospel (free forgiveness, effectual atonement, imputed righteousness, and infallible, irresistible grace) are cast before swine, they will trample the pearls in the mud to get at the one who preaches God’s free grace in Christ, and will destroy him if they can.

Fourthly, Act 6:15 shows us that GOD IS FAITHFUL TO HIS FAITHFUL SERVANTS. Stephen’s conscience was pure and free from guilt with regard to the charges made against him. Therefore, he had nothing to fear. What he had said and done had been for the glory of God. He knew he had done nothing but serve the honor of God, the will of God, the interests of his kingdom, his gospel, and his people. Therefore, in the face of death, he was calm and courageous; so much so that his face looked as bright, happy, and radiant as the face of an angel. In the hour of his greatest trial he did not forsake his God and his God did not forsake him (Heb 13:5-6).

What an example Stephen is. Let us be faithful servants to Christ, our God and Savior. If we willingly serve him in all things, he will use us as he sees fit for his glory. He will give us grace to do his will. He will crown us with life everlasting (Rev 2:10).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

full: Act 6:3, Act 6:5, Act 6:10, Act 6:15, Act 7:55, Eph 4:11, 1Ti 3:13

did: Act 2:17, Act 2:18, Act 4:29, Act 4:30, Act 8:6

Reciprocal: Act 1:8 – ye shall Act 2:4 – filled Act 11:24 – full 2Ti 1:7 – but

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

8

Act 6:8. Stephen could do these miracles because the hands of an apostle were laid on him (verse 6). The New Testament was not in existence yet and it was necessary to have men equipped to support their preaching with such special evidence. This is taught in Eph 4:8-14, where Paul is considering both the temporary and the permanent form of the plan of salvation under Christ. But while these deacons could preach the word, and even confirm it with miracles, they could not bestow such power upon others, not having that “measure” of the Spirit Hence after they would make converts to the Gospel, it required the hands of an apostle to confer miraculous power on them. (See chapter 8:14-17.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Acts of St. Stephen, Act 6:8 to Act 8:2.

Act 6:8. And Stephen. One of the new men just chosen as assistants to the Twelve at once attracted public attention. His fearlessness, his splendid oratory, his intense faith, the great wonders and signs done in the power of this faith, threw into the shade the apostles and their words and works. Stephen soon became in the eyes of the Jews the foremost among the Nazarene heretics by his fearless denunciation of the emptiness of Judaism as practised by Pharisee as well as Sadducee. He drew down on his head the bitter hatred of each of the powerful parties in the state.

Full of faith. The better reading here is , grace, not to be understood as favour with the people, but as favour with God, the effects of which grace were those Divine powers which enabled him to work those signs and wonders.

And power. That is, strength, heroic fortitude to do and to endure; heroismus (Meyer).

Did great wonders and miracles among the people. It is better to refer the special power by which Stephen worked these great wonders, to the intenseness of his faith, rather than to the special grace which, in common with the other six, he received by the imposition of the apostles hands. This is the first instance given us of any one not an apostle working signs and wonders.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 7. (Act 6:8-15; Act 7:1-60.)

Completion of the Testimony to the Nation.

In fact, the whole system of Judaism is tottering to its fall; and the nation is ready to give its last, emphatic answer to the grace that has visited it. The number to which the converts had increased could only arouse hostility proportionately more, as the leaders felt their authority compromised, themselves personally attacked, and all ranks being swept away into an opposition continually gathering strength, with its arguments which could be met only by force, and its signs and wonders which could neither be denied nor imitated. Only the fear of the people had hitherto restrained, as we have seen, the outbreak of fury on the part of the council twice before. And now it is increasingly being felt that a struggle cannot be averted; it is in fact a death-struggle. The occasion of its coming on is now shown us by the inspired historian; and with this the offer to the nation as such ends. Stephen, “full of grace and power,” becomes, on that very account, the object of special enmity to the enraged people, and as the first martyr, receives the “crown” of which his name speaks.* He becomes the messenger sent after the Lord, to say, “We will not have this Man to reign over us.” The glory of Christ shines upon the face of His witness, and makes it radiant with the light of heaven, where the Son of man stands at the right hand of God. Earth has cast out the Light; but to earth’s outcasts heaven is opening, as it never opened yet. We have an intimation, indeed, of Paul’s “gospel of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ;” although not yet is Paul come to proclaim it. He is there! yes; keeping the garments of those that stone that glory from the face of Stephen!

{*The meanings of the seven names are no doubt significant: -1. Stephen -A crown. 2. Philip -A lover of horses -a racer. 3. Prochorus -A leader of praise. 4. Nicanor -A victor. 5. Timon -Honorable. 6. Parmenas -Enduring. 7. Nicholas -Conqueror of the people.}

1. We do not read hitherto of any miracles wrought by other hands than those of the apostles; but now the “power” that is in Stephen manifests itself in great wonders and signs among the people. There is commencing, apparently, a wider bestowal of gifts of this kind, such as was, at any rate, found afterwards. The “faith,” of which we have been told that he was full, doubtless coveted, as the apostle exhorts at a later time, the best gifts, and these, although not so valuable in themselves as that of prophecy, were of great importance for the crisis then approaching. The saints had prayed, on the first return of the apostles from the council, that God would glorify the name of Jesus by stretching out His hand to heal; and Stephen’s endowment is found in connection with most earnest testimony. Hellenist himself, the men of the Hellenistic synagogues to whom he had been probably formerly well known, undertake disputation with him, but are unable to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he speaks. This rouses all their malice against him; and as with his Lord, to whom through this closing scene he is in growing likeness, they suborn men to bear false witness against him. They could easily pervert his words, no doubt, into blasphemies against Moses; and those against God could be, with not much more difficulty, reasoned from the other. And now we find what is deeply significant for the issue with regard to the nation; the people, who had hitherto been favorable to the disciples, now join the outcry against them. Henceforth, save as the direct action of the Spirit still produces faith in a remnant of them, rulers and people are one. Persecution can now therefore begin in earnest, and the door of repentance as yet held open to them begins to close. This gives character to the last testimony of Stephen, as we shall see directly: it is a full summing up of the case against them, and adds to their crime in the death of the Lord Jesus, the witness that they always resist the Holy Spirit. The last hope is gone when this can be said.

They come upon him, and seize him, and bring him before the council, -at last with their wolfish ferocity unbridled. And here the false witnesses can amplify their assertions “He does not cease,” they affirm, “to say things against the holy place, and the law: for we have heard him say that this Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered unto us.”

Matter enough indeed to stir the dullest of those who have no greater boast than to be Moses’ disciples! They look intently upon the man so accused, to see how he will bear himself, or what he will answer to such an accusation, and lo, as if he were himself Moses, his face brightens with an angelic glory! As if not seeing the lowering gloom around him, he is in the light, under the smile of God!

2. Stephen is not upon his defence. He is not answering for himself, nor pleading at all. He is the judge giving sentence. He is the still, small voice of the national conscience roused by the power of the Spirit of God. He is the memory of the people, edged and sharpened, as when called into the Presence of God. The long roll of the centuries obeys his summons, and comes forth; its record of the simplest, but with a strange new utterance; a voice of challenge and conviction, impossible to resist. If, even now, they had but hearkened to it! But man is capable of turning from known, incontestable realities, and of saying in the pride of his heart that things are as he will have them to be. Thus Israel once more turns her back upon God, and abides, still under the doom which it has brought upon her.

(1) Stephen goes back to Abraham, to the father in whom they boasted, but in whom God had set before their eyes the principles which He would have them ever remember, -principles which,while the world continues what sin has made it, must ever abide as principles owned of Him and necessary for a path according to His mind. Back of law they must go to find the one in whom they had the promises, -a man justified by faith, and thus a perfect example of the grace which they so steadily refused.

“The God of glory,” begins Stephen, “appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran.” Thus all for him was found in One who by this marvelous vision drew him to Himself. We know that he and his were serving other gods in that land beyond the flood, (that is, Euphrates, Jos 24:2). They were involved in the idolatry in which, even then, the whole land was immersed; and there and thus grace met him. He was not the heir of privilege; and for him the glory dwelt not in any place made with hands, but apart from the world, in which he became by the revelation henceforth a pilgrim. From the land of his birth God called him out, and from his kindred; and the land to which He called him was one unknown. Faith every way was a necessity to him; slow as he might be, and was, to sever the ties of nature, which were but hindrance to him. After his father was dead, God removed him to the land which was to be his own.

Yet here also the discipline continued, and by faith alone was the land ever enjoyed by him. Promised it was, but no foot of it made good to him; and the seed which was to inherit it came late and slowly on. Of grace, then, and of faith in the unseen, was Abraham’s life a constant witness to them; and this was the life so approved of God, so honored by themselves, who yet knew so little of it!

A long sorrow also was made known to him in relation to his seed. They were again to leave the land which was theirs by promise, and to dwell in another, ill-treated, and in bondage, until 400 years had run their length. Then God would judge their oppressors, and they should come out, and serve Him in the inheritance destined for them. But for so long a time still discipline and the need of faith! They grew to a nation in that stern Egyptian school. But why the furnace covenanted to them thus? Why this need of the Refiner’s fire?

It all hangs perfectly together: man under this patient but strong hand of God, ever to be watched, never to be reckoned upon. On the other hand, faith in God always therefore the one necessity, always sure amid all changes. With this, as the apostle shows, witnesses that covenant of circumcision of which Stephen thereupon speaks. Abraham is near a hundred years old,” his body now dead,” nothing more to be expected from it. Just there it is that God, as the “Almighty” God, comes in to renew His assurance of what He will do, when Abraham can do nothing. Circumcision is “the putting off the body of the flesh” (Col 2:11); and thus it was to him “the seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised” (Rom 4:11). Where then is the law, and all the work of man in which Israel so trusted, in the covenant given to a man with a “body now dead”? And this sign is now to be put upon all the seed of Abraham: “And so he begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs” or tribe-fathers.

Here are the principles which would have carried Israel through to blessing. Had they sat patiently at the feet of Moses even, they would have learned them from the other side. God never left Himself without witness of the characteristic marks of all that comes from Him: “Had ye believed Moses,” said the Lord to them, “ye would have believed Me.” And this was as true of His indirect, as of His direct testimony.

(2) Stephen goes on to another part of well-known history, in which not only the fundamental untrustworthiness of man displayed itself, but in a way which was but too significant of their later rejection of their God-sent deliverers. Indeed, their latest and worst was in so many ways pictured in it that the least sensitive conscience should have been aroused by it. And this took place in the history of the first fathers of the nation, who yet wrought out in it unwittingly the purposes of God. Who could forget the envy of Joseph’s brethren! which yet helped to fulfil the very premonitions of his greatness which had caused their envy. They sold him into Egypt, (did those before Stephen not remember their own thirty pieces of silver? ) but God was with him, spite of those afflictions in the meantime, out of which God so signally delivered him, and made him governor over all the land. Then came the famine which compelled his guilty brethren to have recourse to him whom they had rejected and cast out. And this again led to the fulfillment of the prophecy to Abraham. Man, working freely and, alas, away from God, nevertheless wrought out His purposes as if designedly seeking their accomplishment.*

{*There is a well-known difficulty in connection with what is said of the burial of Jacob and his sons. The simplest rectification is by omitting “Abraham” from the text; which would then read “which he bought,” -referring to Jacob, and “they were carried over to Sychem” would refer to Jacob’s sons alone; of whom we only know that Joseph was, but the tradition among the Jews was that the rest were also. “Jerome states that Paula saw the sepulchres of the rest; and Wetstein quotes Syncellus and two Jewish writers to the same purpose. The omission of Abraham is given credit to by this -that one uncial MS., ancient and of good authority, has an addition here which gives strong ground to suppose Abraham to be an interpolation.” (The Irrationalism of Infidelity: being a reply to “Phases of Faith;” p. 140.)}

(3) And now the speaker proceeds to Moses himself, -Moses whose disciples they all claimed to be, as indeed God had made him their deliverer and lawgiver; but had he in fact fared much better at their hands? Through Moses also they had received the “living oracles,” and the house of God (which they had brought into his indictment) had received its initial form through him. What was the testimony of history again as to all this? He brings forward no reasoning of his own; nothing that they could for a moment deny: the facts are a sufficient argument. But he goes more leisurely through these, as if he would have them marshal their cumulative evidence well, and compel the attention of his unwilling listeners. It is as if, not he, but Moses himself had turned to be their accuser; as the Lord had before declared to them that he was; and that they were going on with such an adversary to the judgment. The judgment now was really come, and the Judge was about to deliver them to the officer, that they might be cast into prison: -a prison from which (although the doors are about to open) they have never come forth yet.

The birth of Moses was in one of the disastrous times of Israel’s history. The destruction of their male children threatened their very existence as a nation; and as one of these doomed ones, he was only saved by the signal interposition of God, who shelters him in the bosom of the persecutor. As the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter he is taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and becomes mighty in words and deeds. Scripture says nothing elsewhere of this education of his, but much of the divine discipline by which he became the fit ruler of the people of God. Stephen mentions, perhaps, his greatness, to exhibit the more the power of that love which made him renounce it all to identify himself with a rabble of serfs, and set himself in opposition to all the wealth and power and civilization of the foremost nation of the day. Perfectly he knew all that his choice implied; but he saw Him who was invisible, who was lost to the Egyptians amid their bestial deities; and “it came into his heart to look upon his brethren, the sons of Israel.” God was looking upon them, as he was; and the spirit of the deliverer awoke within him. Seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was being oppressed, and smote the Egyptian. He thought that his brethren would understand that by him God was giving deliverance to Israel; but they understood not. The love that had brought him to renounce for their sakes the place in which he had been so wonderfully put by God, was not appreciated; and when he would have united and set them at one, he was in their mind only assuming without warrant the place of a ruler and judge over them. He had to flee with his work unaccomplished, and become a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he found other attachments, and became the father of children.

No doubt there was that in Moses that needed the discipline; and at the backside of the desert he got training that he needed for the work which after all he was to do. God is over all, and through all, and in all. Thus all can be accepted as of Him, and one can see His hand in that which is nevertheless the sin of man, and done in opposition to Him. In the people there was no preparedness of heart, no generous response to the devotedness that would have served them, no perception of the mind of God at all. Their appointed deliverer they drove out among strangers, as Israel were doing now with One who had come down from a more wonderful height, with attestation from God beyond all that ever had been given before, and to accomplish a much mightier deliverance. But the warning was plain that that Moses in whom now they boasted had been for forty years an outcast from the people who had yet to own that God indeed had raised him up to be their ruler and their judge.

Stephen pursues the story of how to that rejected man there came the commission from God, sealed with the broad seal of wonders and signs which accredited in that day to another generation what now no miraculous signs, with how much that went far beyond them, could accredit. In the flame of fire in a bush unburnt, Jehovah had manifested Himself to him, tremble though he might as he stood barefoot in His presence, to send him back, His messenger, into Egypt. How unlike indeed to the glory that had so lately been displayed among them, where He who was sent was One with Him who sent Him, -the glory of the Father’s Son!

Yet Moses accomplished His work; as Egypt and the Red Sea and the desert witnessed. They believed in Moses now! Was it not he who said,” A prophet will God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me”?

From him came the living oracles, -the voice of Him who had been speaking to them ever since. He whom they rashly accused of blasphemy against Moses, clears himself from any possible imputation of irreverence as to what had spoken to his own soul as that. But for Israel, alas! how had Israel, encompassed with all those daily manifestations of divine power and grace of which their history bore witness, -how had Israel treated Moses? How had they treated that Greater Presence that went with them then? It was all written in those records of theirs, so well-known by them, so little fruitful in them. Were they subject? Let their molten god bear witness! Let Jehovah’s neglected altars, all those forty years, while those of Moloch and Remphan steamed with profane offerings! And there, as Amos declares in the name of the Lord, their captivity had already been decided.* How this shows the unity of the nation morally all through their history! for their heartfelt turning to God at any time would have brought about the rescinding of that judgment which the prophet thus declares had been continually impending over them.

{* Amo 5:25-27. Stephen follows, in general here, the text of the Septuagint, which substitutes Remphan for the “Chiun” of the Hebrew; for what reason seems not to be clear. For “beyond Damascus,” in the prophet, Stephen, interpreting by the history, says “beyond Babylon.”}

The tent of testimony began also in the wilderness the history of that dwelling-place of God among them, which furnished another count in the indictment of the fearless disciple. Moses had received the pattern, and made it as directed; and it had come into the land with Joshua, when God cast out the nations from before His people. Of how much might the mere mention of its tarrying time remind them, until David prepared for, and Solomon built the House which with its chequered history, and so long now in its tenantless condition, they clung to yet. But whatever it might be, did they think it, then, so adequate a dwelling for the Creator of all? Solomon himself had asked with wonder, whether He whom the heaven of heavens could not contain could be indeed contained in the house that he had builded. And God Himself had asked by the prophet a similar question. How poor and unworthy was in fact that reverence for the house by those who had cast out and slain the Son of the Father, -Him whose glory Isaiah had seen filling it!

At the thought of that, the light upon that radiant face seems to kindle into an awful glow of fire. The love of God poured out upon the people of His choice, met but by the enmity of apostate hearts, which had tasted only to harden themselves against it, stirs to passionate outbreak a heart that has with its whole energy responded to it. He rebukes them as not the Israel of God, but stubborn and uncircumcised Gentiles in heart and ears. They had always, -and now how fatally, -resisted the gracious strivings of the Holy Spirit, in one unbroken succession of ungodly men. Had he spoken to them by prophets? which of these had not been the victims of their malicious rage? They had slain the messengers who had but announced the coming of the Righteous One; and He having come, they had now gone on to be His betrayers and His murderers! Law! -they might talk of law! They had received it, indeed, at the hands of angels; but they had never kept it.

3. Was it not true? There was nothing in it all, but the simplest facts of history, the unimpeached, unimpeachable testimony of writers held by themselves for inspired men. Not even a comment had been given, not an application made, until the full tale to which they had listened was complete. Then at last the verdict had been pronounced, none other than which could possibly have been given. Their consciences bore witness in the lightning flash of conviction which cut them to the heart. Yes, it was true, that was the maddening, if not the overwhelming reality: and stubborn with Satanic pride, they were not overwhelmed, but maddened: “They gnashed upon him with their teeth.” It was like a defiant hell; though hell will not be defiant.

On the other side, heaven opens upon its martyr -surely martyr now! Filled with the Spirit, he looks up with eager intentness, out of the fast darkening earth to the place whence the light of God, breaking through the mists, had lighted up his face with radiance. But now, as he looks, there is no mist at all, but a way opened through to the uttermost glory; and there He of whom he had testified is revealed to him, standing at the right hand of God. There are no receptive hearts to which to utter it; but he cannot keep back the closing testimony vouchsafed him. Hear it or not, the testimony must be given. Eager, impassioned, triumphant, “Behold,” he says, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.”

They will have no more! As out of the mouth of the pit, comes the shriek of frenzied opposition: “they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him.” Israel has given her answer to the appeal of God, and in the light of the open heavens, they slay His witness. The trial of the nation with this is ended.

Yet out of the darkness there is permitted to us here one reminder of transcendent grace: “the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.”

There is nothing to be said of him yet; we are turned from him to him who has now fought the good fight, and has finished his course, for whom his crown of victory is reserved: “They stoned Stephen invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Witness he is to the last; and most so when wholly unconscious of it he has beheld the glory of his Lord with open face, and is changed by it into the same image, from glory to glory: -undying glory in a dying face! “And kneeling down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge! And having said this, he fell asleep.”

How plainly through all this is the fore-gleam of what is just at hand! Only in the language of Saul, the present persecutor, -of Paul, the apostle as he is soon to he, -do we find adequate expression for the spiritual interpretation of the last moments of the dying Stephen. He was to see for himself, through the wondrous grace of God, what Stephen had seen and testified. But in Stephen himself he had seen that transforming power of the glory of Christ, of which he speaks in the words that have been quoted from him. Was he not looking back in them to such a scene as we know never passed from his remembrance? True, he had raged against it then. All the deeper would be his remembrance of it now. Paul is in many ways Stephen revived; and thus what the imprint of Stephen’s death would make him. Certainly there was here the anticipation of that “gospel of the glory of Christ” (2Co 4:4), which was, in a special sense, his gospel. Fitting it was that the awful cloud which closed in darkness Israel’s day of grace, should be banded with the brightness of the day that was to follow. The fulness of God’s grace, and His manifold wisdom were to be told out now in the Church in its new and heavenly relationships, -mysteries that had been hid from ages and generations, but are now made manifest to the saints (Col 1:26). In Stephen’s vision we have not as yet, of course, the Church, but the Son of man in heaven, which He has opened by His presence there; Heaven fixing the gaze and beckoning the feet of the saints by the Object revealed there. Judaism is thus ended for us; the law with its unrent veil is set aside; and the way is opened for Jew and Gentile to be brought together as heirs of a better inheritance than the law could speak of.

But even now this will only gradually be realized; and the riches of grace will only by degrees pass into the actual possession of those to whom they are destined.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Observe here, The great character given of St. Stephen; a man full of the grace of God, full of faith, full of power to work miracles, mighty in word and deed; able to do all things, and to suffer all things through Christ that strengthened him.

Observe, 2. The violent opposition which this good man met with in the way of his duty.

He is, 1. Encountered by disputation with the heads of five colleges in Jerusalem, namely, Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiaties.

Behold here, an admirable act kept, wherein St. Stephen was the respondent against whom opponents appeared from all parts of the then known world; but all too few to resist the wisdom and Spirit by which he spake. He asserted the truth so convincingly, that all his opposites had no power to oppose him. See here how faithful Christ was in fulfilling of his promise, I will give you a mouth and wisdom, Which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or oppose Luk 21:15.

2. His adversaries being baffled in their disputes, they burn with revenge; they hire men to accuse him falsely, that they might take away his life. The best arguments of a baffled adversary are ever found to be craft and cruelty: it has been and old artifice of the devil, to swear innocent men out of their lives: And therefore it is next to a miracle, that no greater number of innocent persons have been murdered in the world by perjury and false accusation; when so many thousands hate them, who make no conscience of false oaths.

Observe, 3. The charge and accusation brought against Stephen, that he spake dishonourably of the Jewish religion, that he was continually foretelling destruction to the temple, and threatening the change of all the Mosaic rites. It is very probable, that he told them the shadows and ceremonies were to vanish, now the substance was come; and that the Mosaic rites were to give place, that a more excellent and spiritual worship might succeed. For as God was worshipped aright four hundred years before either tabernacle or temple were built, or the Jewish rites instituted: So he might again be truly worshipped after they were abolished.

Observe, lastly, How almighty God, by a miracle, bears witness to the innocency of his holy servant St. Stephen; and to convince his accusers, that he had done no wrong to Moses, God makes his face to shine now as Moses’s face had shined of old, and gave him an angelical countenance, in which appeared an extraordinary lustre and radiancy; not that an angel has a face, or shines visibly; but it intimates that amazing brightness of beauty which was instamped upon the face of Stephen. He now began to border upon heaven, and had received some beams of glory approaching: It pleaseth God sometimes to give his children and servants some prelibations and foretastes of heaven before they step into heaven, especially holy martyrs and confessors, who love not their live unto death: to his name and truth; and as they shall shine forth in the kingdom of their Father, so will God sometimes put a lustre upon their faces here: All in the council saw St. Stephen’s face, as it had been the face of an angel.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

One of the Seven, Stephen, Accused of Blasphemy

The record of great miracles being wrought by Stephen is the first such by anyone other than an apostle. It should be noted that such was not accomplished without a laying on of the apostles’ hands. The miracles attracted the attention of the members of a synagogue which was comprised of people from among the Freedmen, or freed slaves. These came from various cities outside of Palestine. Since Cilicia, where Tarsus is located, is specifically mentioned, it may be that Paul attended this synagogue. Some confronted Stephen and began to debate with him concerning his teaching. They could not, however, refute the wisdom of Stephen’s arguments, since it came from the Holy Spirit ( Act 6:8-10 ).

So, they bribed certain men to accuse Stephen of blasphemy, specifically, speaking against God’s words as delivered by Moses. The aroused multitude, along with the elders and scribes, captured him and took him before the council. The false witnesses went so far as to say that Stephen said Jesus would destroy the temple. In actuality, our Lord had said the religious leaders of his day would destroy the temple of his body, which would then be raised up in three days. Too, the change in God’s covenant was foretold by the Almighty through his prophets ( Act 6:11-14 ; Jer 31:31-34 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 6:8-10. And Stephen, full of faith and power That is, of a strong faith, by which he was enabled to do extraordinary things. They that are full of faith are full of power, because, by faith the power of God is engaged for us. Some valuable copies, however, read , grace, instead of , faith. Did great wonders and miracles among the people Did them openly, and in the sight of all: for Christs miracles feared not the strictest scrutiny. We need not wonder that Stephen, though not a preacher by office, should do these great wonders; for the gifts of the Spirit were divided among the disciples as God pleased: and the power of working miracles was a gift distinct from that of prophesying or preaching, and bestowed on some to whom the latter was not given, 1Co 12:10-11. And our Lord promised that the signs of miracles should not only follow them that preached, but them that believed, Mar 16:17. Then there arose certain of the synagogue of the Libertines So they were styled, whose fathers were once slaves, and afterward made free. This was the case of many Jews, who had been taken captive by the Romans, under Pompey, and carried into Italy, and Cyrenians, &c. It was one and the same synagogue, which consisted of these several nations. Saul of Cilicia was, doubtless, a member of it. Disputing with Stephen Arguing with him concerning his doctrine, with a view to prevent the success of his preaching. But such was the force of his reasoning, that they were not able to resist the wisdom, &c. They could neither support their own arguments nor answer his. He proved Jesus to be the Christ by such irresistible arguments, and delivered himself with so much clearness and evidence, that they had nothing of any weight to object against what he advanced: though they were not convinced, yet they were confounded. It is not said, they were not able to resist him, but to resist the wisdom and the Spirit That is, the Spirit of wisdom which spake by him. They thought they only disputed with Stephen, and could make their cause good against him; but they were disputing with the Spirit of God in him, for whom they were an unequal match. Now was fulfilled that promise, I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist, Luk 21:15.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

8. We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) “Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was “full of faith.” This accords with the fact already observed, (3:16 ,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

STEPHENS MINISTRY

8-15. Though Stephen was but a poor, uncultured layman, honored with the office of deacon, i. e., permitted to sweep the floor, and light the lamps, and collect money to support the evangelistic widows, they complimented him with this office because he was full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. Yet, like all of the disciples in the Apostolic age (Act 8:4), he preached the living Word. He did not have to get a license; the apostles had none for themselves nor anybody else. Thus far the plug-hatted clergymen who invented license had not been born. As Stephen is identified with those Hellenistic synagogues in which the Greek language is spoken, he goes to preaching in them with all his might. The representatives of these synagogues, dispersed in all heathen lands, had come to Jerusalem to attend the great Jewish feast of Pentecost, which so miraculously and unexpectedly by divine intervention was transformed into the most memorable revival the world ever saw and memorialized with the incarnation of the Holy Ghost, and the embarkation of the gospel ship. These synagogues, here represented by their delegates, were the Libertines, i. e., the freed people, consisting of Jews who had been carried to Rome as slaves, but afterward liberated by the Emperors; the Cyrenians from Cyrene, a large city in northern Africa, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, where there were many Jews; the Alexandrians, from the city of Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, where the Jews dwelt in great numbers and were much encouraged by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who had the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek, known as the Septuagint, for the benefit of his Jewish subjects; and the Greek-speaking Jews from Cilicia and Asia. Here we find the first indirect mention of that celebrated man, Saul of Tarsus, destined in two more chapters to come to the front and prove the hero of this inspired history. Since he was born to rule, depend on it, he was the speaker of the opposition against Stephen, with the delegates from all of these prominent cities holding up his hands while he pressed the battle to the awful ultimatum of Stephens martyrdom.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Act 6:8-15. Attack on Stephen.This Hellenist Christian draws upon himself the attention of the people. He was full of grace; the inspiration which gave him his power led to disturbance from a synagogue or synagogues of foreign Jews from various countries settled at Jerusalem. Hellenistic Jews could be as narrow as those at Jerusalem (cf. 2 Corinthians 10-13). To the statement that they could not resist him D adds: because they were boldly confuted by him and could not face the truth. These disputes not yielding any matter for a charge, they got others to come forward and accuse him of attacking Moses and God, and thus stirred up the people, till now so favourable to the believers. The elders and scribes are also worked upon; Stephen is brought before the Sanhedrin. The charges are, to some extent, borne out by the following speech (Act 7:48), as the charge against Jesus (Mar 14:58) was by His words (Mar 13:2). To a Christian writer they are false charges, because directed against Christ. Cf. the charge made against Paul by Jews of Asia (Act 21:28). Act 6:14 enables us to understand the tendency of Stephens teaching up to this point, as well as the change of popular feeling, at least towards Stephens section of the Church. Pauls doctrine completes the theme announced by Stephen. It is Jesus, this Nazorean (Act 2:22*) who is to destroy the Temple and change the ritual (customs, cf. Act 15:1, Act 16:21, Act 21:21, Act 26:3, Act 28:17). The illumination of the face of the martyr who saw the Divine glory is mentioned in several early martyrdoms.

[Act 6:9. Libertines: i.e. freedmen. But probably we should read Libyans (i.e. Libustinn for Libertinon. This emendation is as old as cumenius. It was proposed in modern times by Beza, in the first and second editions of his Annotations, and subsequently withdrawn. Wetstein retains Libertines, but explains it as equivalent to Libystines (Libyans). In his Philology of the Gospels (pp. 69f.), on the basis of Libyans read by Armenian versions of the Acts and commentaries, Blass suggested Libustinon, in complete ignorance that it had been suggested before, though a glance at Wetstein, or even at Meyer, would have shown him that he had been anticipated. It suits geographically the combination with Cyrenians and Alexandrians. No synagogue of the Libertines is known in Jerusalem, though there may have been one in Pompeii. The emendation has been accepted by several scholars. Preuschen reads Libyans. See further Rendel Harris, Sidelights on NT Research, pp. 181f.A. S. P.]

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

6:8 {6} And Stephen, full of faith and {g} power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

(6) God trains his Church first with evil words and slanders, then with imprisonments, afterwards with scourgings, and by these means prepares it in such a way that at length he causes it to meet in combat with Satan and the world, even to bloodshed and death.

(g) Excellent and singular gifts.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

II. THE WITNESS IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA 6:8-9:31

In this next major section of Acts, Luke narrated three significant events in the life and ministry of the early church. These events were the martyrdom of Stephen, the ministry of Philip, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Luke’s presentation of these events was primarily biographical. In fact, he began his account of each event with the name of its major character (Act 6:8; Act 8:5; Act 9:1). The time when these events took place was probably shortly after those reported in the preceding chapters of the book.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Stephen was full of grace (cf. cf. Act 4:33; Luk 4:22) and power (cf. Act 2:22; Act 4:33) as well as the Holy Spirit (Act 6:3; Act 6:5), wisdom (Act 6:3), and faith (Act 6:5). His ability to perform miracles seems unrelated to his having been appointed as one of the Seven (Act 6:5; cf. Act 21:8). Jesus and the Twelve were not the only ones who had the ability to perform miracles (cf. Act 2:22; Act 2:43; Act 5:12).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. Stephen’s arrest 6:8-7:1

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

A. The martyrdom of Stephen 6:8-8:1a

Luke presented the events surrounding Stephen’s martyrdom in Jerusalem next. He did so to explain the means God used to scatter the Christians and the gospel from Jerusalem into Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. This record also throws more light on the spiritual strength and vitality of the church at this time. Stephen’s experiences as recorded here resemble those of our Lord, as Peter’s did in the earlier chapters. Witherington listed 10 parallels between the passions of Jesus and Stephen. [Note: Witherington, p. 253.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 14

ST. STEPHEN AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Act 6:5-6; Act 6:8-11

THE names of the seven chosen on the suggestion of the Apostles raises very naturally the question, To what office were they appointed? Did the seven elected on this occasion represent the first beginning of that office of deacon which is regarded as the third rank in the Church, bishops being first, and presbyters or priests second. It is agreed by all parties that the title of deacon is not given to them in the sixth chapter of the Acts, and yet such an unprejudiced and fair authority as Bishop Lightfoot, in his Essay on the Christian Ministry, maintains that the persons selected and ordained at this crisis constituted the first origin of the diaconate as it is now known. The Seven are not called, either here or wherever else they are mentioned in the Acts, by the name of deacons, though the word (serve), which cannot be exactly rendered into English, as the noun deacon has no equivalent verb answering to it, is applied to the duties assigned to them. But all the best critics are agreed that the ordination of the Seven was the occasion of the rise of a new order and a new office in the Church, whose work dealt more especially with the secular side of the ministerial function. The great German critic, Meyer, commenting on this sixth chapter, puts it well, though not so clearly as we should like. “From the first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appointment to which could not but regulate analogically the practice of the Church, was gradually developed the diaconate, which subsequently underwent further elaboration.” This statement is somewhat obscure, and thoroughly after the manner of a German critic; let us develop it a little, and see what the process was whereby the distributers of alms to the widows of the earliest Church organisation became the officials of whom St. Laurence of Rome in the third, and St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century were such eminent examples.

I. The institutions of the synagogue must necessarily have exercised a great influence over the minds of the Apostles and of their first converts. One fact alone vividly illustrates this idea. Christians soon began to call their places of assembly by the name of churches or the Lords houses, but the old habit was at first too strong, and so the churches or congregations of the earliest Christians were called synagogues. This is evident even from the text of the Revised Version of the New Testament, for if we turn to the second chapter of the Epistle of James we read there, “If there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring,”-showing that in St. Jamess day a Christian Church was called a synagogue. This custom received some few years ago a remarkable confirmation from the records of travel and discovery. The Marcionites were a curious Christian sect or heresy which sprang up in the second century. They were intensely opposed to Judaism, and yet so strong was this tradition that even they seemed to have retained, down to the fourth century, the name of synagogue as the title of their churches, for some celebrated French explorers have discovered in Syria an inscription, still in existence, carved over the door of a Marcionite church, dated A.D. 318, and that inscription runs thus: “The Synagogue of the Marcionites.”

Now seeing that the force of tradition was so great as to compel even an anti-Jewish sect to call their meeting-houses by a Jewish name, we may be sure that the tradition of the institutions, forms, and arrangements of the synagogue must have been infinitely more potent with the earliest Christian believers, constraining them to adopt similar institutions in their own assemblies. Human nature is always the same, and the example of our own colonists sheds light upon the course of Church development in Palestine. When the Pilgrim Fathers went to America, they reproduced the English constitution and the English laws in that country with so much precision and accuracy that the expositions of law produced by American lawyers are studied with great respect in England. The American colonists reproduced the institutions and laws with which they were familiar, modifying them merely to suit their own peculiar circumstances; and so has it been all the world over wherever the Anglo-Saxon race has settled-they have done exactly the same thing. They have established states and governments modelled after the type of England, and not of France or Russia. So was it with the early Christians. Human nature compelled them to fall back upon their first experience, and to develop under a Christian shape the institutions of the synagogue under which they had been trained. And now, when we read the Acts, we see that here lies the most natural explanation of the course of history, and specially of this sixth chapter. In the synagogue, as Dr. John Lightfoot expounds it in his “Horae Hebraicae,” {Mat 4:23} the government was in the hands of the ruler and the council of elders or presbyters, while under them there were three almoners or deacons, who served in the same capacity as the Seven in superintending the charitable work of the congregation. The great work for which the Seven were appointed was distribution, and we shall see that this was ever maintained, and is still maintained, as the leading idea of the diaconate, though other and more directly spiritual work was at once added to their functions by St. Stephen and St. Philip. Now, just as our colonists brought English institutions and ideas with them wherever they settled, so was it with the missionaries who went forth from the Mother Church of Jerusalem. They carried the ideas and institutions with them which had been there sanctioned by the Apostles, and thus we find deacons mentioned in conjunction with bishops at Philippi, deacons joined with bishops in St. Pauls Epistle to Timothy, and the existence of the institution at Corinth, and its special work as a charitable organisation, implied in the description given of Phoebe to the Roman Christians in the sixteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. St. Pauls directions to Timothy in the third chapter of his first Epistle deal both with deacons and deaconesses, and in each case lay down qualifications specially suited for distributers of charitable relief, whose duty called upon them to visit from house to house, but say nothing about any higher work. They are indeed “to hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience; ” they must be sound in the faith like the Seven themselves; but the special qualifications demanded by St. Paul are those needed in almoners: “The deacons must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.”

So far as to the testimony of Scripture. When we pass beyond the bounds of the canonical books, and come to the apostolic fathers, the evidence is equally clear. They testify to the universality of the institution, and bear witness to its work of distribution. Clement of Rome was a contemporary of the Apostles. He wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, which is the earliest witness to the existence of St. Pauls Epistles to the same Church. In Clements epistle we find express mention of deacons, of their apostolic appointment, and of the universal diffusion of the office. In the forty-third chapter of his epistle Clement writes to the Corinthians concerning the Apostles:-“Thus preaching through countries and cities they appointed bishops and deacons for those who should afterwards believe,” clearly implying that deacons then existed at Rome, though we have no express notice of them in the epistle written by St. Paul to the Roman Church.

There is a rule, however, very needful for historical investigations. Silence is no conclusive argument against an alleged fact, unless there be silence where, if the alleged fact had existed, it must have been mentioned. Josephus, for instance, is silent about Christ and Christianity. Yet he wrote when its existence was a matter of common notoriety. But there was no necessity for him to notice it. It was an awkward fact too, and so he is silent. St. Paul does not mention deacons as existing at Rome, though he does mention them at Philippi. But Clements words expressly assert that universally, in all cities and countries, this order was established wherever the Apostles taught; and so we find it even from Pagan records. Plinys letter to Trajan, written about A.D. 110, some fifteen or twenty years later than Clement, testifies that the order of deacons existed in far distant Bithynia, among the Christians of the Dispersion to whom St. Peter directed his Epistle. Plinys words are, “I therefore thought it the more necessary, in order to ascertain what truth there was in this account, to examine two slave-girls who were called deaconesses (ministrae), and even to use torture.” (See the article Trajanus in the “Dict. Christ. Biog.,” 4:1040.) It is exactly the same with St. Ignatius in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Trallians, which dates about the same period. The spiritual side of the office had now come more prominently into notice, as the occasion of their first appointment had fallen into disuse; but still Ignatius recognises the origin of the diaconate when he writes that “the deacons are not deacons of meats and drinks, but servants of the Church of God” (Lightfoot, “Apost. Fathers,” vol 2. sec. 1. p. 156). While again Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 5., recognises the same qualities as necessary to deacons which St. Paul requires and enumerates in his Epistle to Timothy. Justin Martyr, a little later, twenty years or so, tells us that the deacons distributed the elements consecrated in the Holy Communion to the believers that were absent (Justin, “First Apol.,” ch. 67.). This is most important testimony, connecting the order of deacons as then flourishing at Rome and their work with the Seven constituted by the Apostle. The daily distribution of the Apostles time was closely connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, which indeed in its meal or food, common to all the faithful, and its charitable collections and oblations, of which Justin Martyr speaks, retained still some trace of the daily distribution which prevailed in the early church, and occasioned the choice of the Seven. The deacons in Justin Martyrs day distributed the spiritual food to the faithful, just as in earlier times they distributed all the sustenance which the faithful required, whether in their spiritual or their temporal aspect. It is evident from this recital of the places where the deacons are incidentally referred to, that their origin was never forgotten, and that distribution of charitable relief and help was always retained as the essence, the central idea and notion, of the office of deacon, though at the same time other and larger functions were by degrees entrusted to them, as the Church grew and increased, and ecclesiastical life and wants became more involved and complex. History bears out this view. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, and must have known many apostolic men, men who had companied with the Apostles and knew the whole detail of primitive Church government; and Irenaeus, speaking of Nicolas the proselyte of Antioch, describes him as “one of the seven who were first ordained to the diaconate by the Apostles.” Now Irenaeus is one of our great witnesses for the authenticity of the Four Gospels; surely then he must be an equally good witness to the origin of the order of deacons and the existence of the Acts of the Apostles which is implied in this reference. It is scarcely necessary to go farther in Church history, but the lower one goes the more clearly we shall see that the original notion of the diaconate is never forgotten. In the third century we find that there were still only seven deacons in Rome, though there were forty-six presbyters, a number which was retained down to the twelfth century in the seven cardinal deacons of that Church. The touching story of the martyrdom of St. Laurence, Archdeacon of Rome in the middle of the third century, shows that he was roasted over a slow fire in order to extort the vast sums he was supposed to have in charge for the purpose of relieving the sick and the poor connected with the Roman Church; proving that the original conception of the office as an executive and charitable organisation was then vigorously retained; just as it is still set forth in the ordinal of the Church of England, where, after reciting how the deacons office is to help the priest in several subordinate positions, it goes on to say, “Furthermore, it is his office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the parish, to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved by the alms of the parishioners.”

The only objection of any value which has been raised to this line of argument is based on a mere assumption. It has been said that the Seven were appointed for a special emergency, and to serve a temporary purpose connected with the community of goods which existed in the early Church of Jerusalem, and therefore when this arrangement ceased the office itself ceased also. But this argument is based on the assumption that the Christian idea of a community of goods wholly passed away, so that services of an order like the Seven were no longer required. This is a pure assumption. The community of goods as practised at Jerusalem was found by experience to be a mistake. The shape of the idea was changed, but the idea itself survived. The old form of community of goods passed away. The Christians retained their rights of private property, but were taught to regard this private property as in a sense common, and liable for all the wants and needs of their poor and suffering brethren. A charitable order, or at least an order charged with the care of the poor, and their relief, must inevitably have sprung up among the Jewish Christians. The relief of the poor was a necessary part of the duty of a synagogue. The Jewish domestic law enforced a poor-rate, and collected it through the organisation of each synagogue, by means of three deacons attached to each. Selden, in his great work on “The Laws of the Hebrews,” bk. 2. chap. 6. (“Works,” 1:632), tells us that if “any Jew did not pay his fair contribution he was punished with stripes.” As soon as the Jewish Christians began to organise themselves, the idea of almoners, with their daily and weekly distributions, after the synagogue model, was necessarily developed. We have an unexceptionable piece of evidence upon this point. The satirist Lucian lived at the close of the second century. He was a bitter scoffer, who jeered at every form of religion, and at Christianity above all. He wrote an account of a certain Syrian named Peregrinus Proteus, who was an impostor trading upon the religious principles of various philosophical sects, and specially on those of the Christians. Lucian tells us that the Christians were the easiest persons to be deceived, because of their opinions. Lucians words are interesting as showing what a second-century pagan, a clever literary man too, thought of Christianity, viewing it from the outside. For this reason we shall quote a little more than the words which immediately bear upon the subject. “It is incredible with what alacrity these people (the Christians) support and defend the public cause. They spare nothing, in fact, to promote it. These poor men have persuaded themselves that they shall be immortal, and live for ever. They despise death therefore, and offer up their lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taught by their lawgiver that they are all brethren, and that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must worship their own sophist, who was crucified, and live in obedience to His laws. In compliance with them, they look with contempt upon all worldly treasures, and hold everything in common-a maxim which they have adopted without any reason or foundation. If any cunning impostor, therefore, who knows how to manage matters, come amongst them, he soon grows rich by imposing on the credulity of those weak and foolish men.” We can see here that the great outer world of paganism considered a community of goods as still prevailing among the Christians. Their boundless liberality, their intense devotion to the cause of their suffering brethren, proved this, and therefore, because a practical community of goods existed amongst them, an order of men was required to superintend the distribution of their liberality in the second century just as tru1y as the work of the Seven was needed in the Church of Jerusalem.

II. We thus can see that the office of deacon, as now constituted, had its origin in apostolic times, and is built upon a scriptural foundation; but here we are bound to point out a great difference between the ancient and the modern office. An office or organisation may spring up in one age, and after existing for several centuries may develop into a shape utterly unlike its original. Yet it may be very hard to point out any special time when a vital change was made. All we can say is that the first occupants of the office would never recognise their modern successors. Take the papacy as an instance. There has been at Rome a regular historical succession of bishops since the first century. The succession is known and undoubted. Yet could one of the bishops of Rome of the first three centuries, -above all, could a first-century bishop of Rome like St. Clement-by any possibility recognise himself or his office in the present Pope Leo XIII? Yet one would find it difficult to fix the exact moment when any vital change was made, or any unwonted claims put forward on behalf of the Roman See. So was it in the case of deacons and their office. Their modern successors may trace themselves back to the seven elected in the primitive Church at Jerusalem, and yet the office is now a very different one in practice from what it was then. Perhaps the greatest difference, and the only one we can notice, is this. The diaconate is now merely the primary and lowest rank of the Christian ministry; a kind of apprenticeship, in fact, wherein the youthful minister serves for a year, and is then promoted as a matter of course; whereas in Jerusalem or Rome of old it was a lifelong office, in the exercise of which maturity of judgment, of piety, and of character were required for the due discharge of its manifold duties. It is now a temporary office, it was of old a permanent one. And the apostolical custom was much the best. It avoided many difficulties and solved many a problem. At present the office of the diaconate is practically in abeyance, and yet the functions which the ancient deacons discharged are not in abeyance, but are placed upon the shoulders of the other orders in the Church, already overwhelmed with manifold responsibilities, and neglecting, while serving tables, the higher aspects of their work. The Christian ministry in its purely spiritual, and specially in its prophetical or preaching aspect, is sorely suffering because an apostolic office is practically set aside. In the ancient Church it was never so. The deacons were chosen to a life-office. It was then but very seldom that a man chosen to the diaconate abandoned it for a higher function. It did not indeed demand the wholesale devotion of time and attention which the higher offices of the ministry did. Men even till a late period, both in East and West, combined secular pursuits with it. Thus let us take one celebrated instance. The ancient Church of England and Ireland alike was Celtic in origin and constitution. It was intensely conservative, therefore, of ancient customs and usages derived from the times of persecution, when Christianity was first taught among the Gauls and Celts of the extreme West. The well-known story of the introduction of Christianity into England under St. Augustine and the opposition he met with prove this. As it was in other matters, so was it with the ancient Celtic deacons; the old customs remained; they held office for life, and joined with it at the same time other and ordinary occupations. St. Patrick, for instance, the apostle of Ireland, tells us that his father Calpurnius was a deacon, and yet he was a farmer and a decurion, or alderman, as we should say, of a Roman town near Dumbarton on the river Clyde. This happened about the year 400 of the Christian era.

Here indeed, as in so many other cases, the Church of Christ needs to go back to scriptural example and to apostolic rule. We require for the work of the Church deacons like the primitive men who devoted their whole lives to this one object; made it the subject of their thoughts, their cares, their studies, how they might instruct the ignorant, relieve the poor and widows, comfort the prisoners, sustain the martyrs in their last supreme hour; and who, thus using well the office of a deacon, found in it a sufficient scope for their efforts and a sufficient reward for their exertions, because they thereby purchased for themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith of Jesus Christ. The Church now requires the help of living agencies in vast numbers, and they are not forthcoming. Let her avail herself of apostolic resources, and fall back upon primitive precedents. The real diaconate should be revived. Godly and spiritual men should be called upon to do their duty. Deacons should be ordained without being called to give up their ordinary employments. Work which now unduly accumulates upon overburdened shoulders should be assigned to others suitably to their talents, and thus a twofold blessing would be secured. Christian life would flourish more abundantly, and many a rent and schism, the simple result of energies repressed and unemployed, would be destroyed in their very commencement.

We have devoted much of our space to this subject, because it is one of great interest, as touching the origin and authority of the Christian ministry, and also because it has been a subject much debated; but we must hurry on to other points connected with the first appointment of the diaconate. The people selected the person to be ordained to this work. It is probable that they made their choice out of the different classes composing the Christian community. The mode of election of the Seven, and the qualifications laid down by the Apostles, were derived from the synagogue. Thus we read in Kittos “Cyclopaedia,” art. “Synagogue:”-“The greatest care was taken by the rulers of the synagogue and of the congregation that those elected almoners should be men of modesty, wisdom, justice, and have the confidence of the people. They had to be elected by the harmonious voice of the people.” Seven deacons altogether were chosen. Three were probably Hebrew Christians, three Grecian Christians or Hellenists, and one a representative of the proselytes, Nicolas of Antioch. This would have been but natural. The Apostles wanted to get rid of murmurs, jealousies, and divisions in the Church, and in no way could this have been more effectually done than by the principle of representation. Had the Seven been all selected from one class alone, divisions and jealousies would have prevailed as of old. The Apostles themselves had proved this. They were all Hebrew Christians. Their position and authority might have secured them from blame. Yet murmurings had arisen against them as distributers, and so they devised another plan, which, to have been successful, as it doubtless was, must have proceeded on a different principle. Then when the seven wise and prudent men were chosen from the various classes, the Apostles asserted their supreme position: “When the Apostles had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” And as the result peace descended like a shower upon the Church, and spiritual prosperity followed upon internal peace and union.

III. “They laid their hands on them.” This statement sets forth the external expression and the visible channel of the ordination to their office which the Apostles conferred. This action of the imposition of hands was of frequent use among the ancient Jews. The Apostles, as well acquainted with Old Testament history, must have remembered that it was employed in the case of designation of Joshua as the leader of Israel in the place of Num 27:18-23; {compare Deu 34:9} that it was used even in the synagogue in the appointment of Jewish rabbis, and had been sanctioned by the practice of Jesus Christ. The Apostles naturally therefore, used this symbol upon the solemn appointment of the first deacons, and the same ceremonial was repeated upon similar occasions. Paul and Barnabas were set apart at Antioch for their missionary work by the imposition of hands. St. Paul uses the strongest language about the ceremony. He does not hesitate to attribute to it a certain sacramental force and efficacy, bidding Timothy “stir up the gift of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands”; {2Ti 1:6} while again, when we come down a few years later, we find the “laying on of hands” reckoned as one of the fundamental elements of religion, in the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But it was not merely in the solemn appointment of officials in the Church that this ceremony found place. It was employed by the Apostles as the rite which filled up and perfected the baptism which had been administered by others. Philip baptised the Samaritans. Peter and John laid their hands tin them and they received the Holy Ghost. The ceremony of imposition of hands was so essential and distinguishing a point that Simon Magus selects it as the one he desires above all others effectually to purchase, so that the outward symbol might be followed by the inward grace. “Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost,” was the prayer of the arch-heretic to St. Peter; while again in the nineteenth chapter we find St. Paul using the same visible ceremony in the case of St. Johns disciples, who were first baptised with Christian baptism, and then endued by St. Paul with the gift of the Spirit. Imposition of hands in the case of ordination is a natural symbol, indicative of the transmission of function and authority. It fitly indicates and notifies to the whole Church the persons who have been ordained, and therefore has ever been regarded as a necessary part of ordination. St. Jerome, who was a very keen critic as well as a close student of the Divine oracles, fixes upon this public and solemn designation as a sufficient explanation and justification of the imposition of hands in ordinations, test any one should be ordained without his knowledge by a silent and solitary prayer. Hence every branch of the Church of Christ has rigorously insisted upon imposition of hands after the apostolic example, in the case of ordinations to official positions, with one or two apparent and very doubtful exceptions, which merely prove the binding character of the rule.

IV. The list of names again is full of profit and of warning. How completely different from human histories, for instance, is this Divine record of the first doings of the Church! How thoroughly shaped after the Divine model is this catalogue of the earliest officials chosen by the Apostles! Men have speculated whether they were Hebrews or Grecians, whether they belonged to the seventy sent forth by Christ or to the hundred and twenty who first gathered into the upper room at Jerusalem. All such speculations are curious and interesting, but they have nothing to do with mans salvation; therefore they are sternly put on one side and out of sight. How we should long to know the subsequent history of these men, and to trace their careers! yet Holy Writ tells us but very little about them, nothing certain, in fact, save what we learn about St. Stephen and St. Philip. God bestowed Holy Scripture upon men, not to satisfy or minister to their curiosity, but to nourish their souls and edify their spirits. And surely no lesson is more needed than the one implied in the silences of this passage; there is in truth none more necessary for our publicity-seeking and popularity-hunting age than this, that Gods holiest servants have laboured in obscurity, have done their best work in secret, and have looked to God alone and to His judgment for their reward. I have said indeed that concerning the list of names recorded as those of the first deacons, we know nothing but of St. Stephen and St. Philip, whose careers will again come under our notice in later chapters. There is, however, a current tradition that Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch, did distinguish himself, but in an unhappy direction. It is asserted by Irenaeus in his work “Against Heresies” (Book 1. chap. 26), that Nicolas was the founder of the sect of Nicolaitans denounced in the Revelation of St. John. {Rev 2:6; Rev 2:16} Critics are, however, much divided upon this point. Some clear Nicolas of this charge, while others uphold it. It is indeed impossible to determine this matter. But supposing that Nicolas of Antioch was the author of this heresy, which was of an antinomian character, like so many of the earliest heresies that distracted the primitive Church, this circumstance would teach us an instructive lesson. Just as there was a Judas Iscariot among the Apostles, and a Demas among St. Pauls most intimate disciples, so was there a Nicolas among the first deacons. No place is so holy, no office so sacred, no privileges so great, but that the tempter can make his way there. He can lurk unseen and unsuspected amid the pillars of the temple, and he can find us out, as he did the Son of God Himself, amid the wilds of the desert. Official position and exalted privileges confer no immunity from temptation. Nay, rather, they bring with them additional temptations over and above those which assail the ordinary Christian, and should therefore lead every one called to any similar work to diligent watchfulness, to earnest prayer, lest while teaching others they themselves fall into condemnation. There is, however, another lesson which a different version of the history of Nicolas would teach. Clement of Alexandria, in his celebrated work called the “Stromata” (Book 2. chap. 20, and Book 3. chap. 4), tells us that Nicolas was a most strictly virtuous man. He was extreme even in his asceticism, and, like many ascetics, used language that might be easily abused to the purposes of wickedness. He was wont to say that the “flesh must be abused,” meaning that it must be chastised and restrained. One-sided and extreme teaching is easily perverted by the wicked nature of man, and men of impure lives, listening to the language of Nicolas, interpreted his words as an excuse for abusing the flesh by plunging into the depths of immorality and crime. Men placed in official positions and called to the exercise of the clerical office should weigh their words. Extreme statements are bad unless duly and strictly guarded. The intention of the speaker may be good, and a mans own life thoroughly consistent, but unbalanced teaching will fall upon ground where the life and intention of the teacher will have no power or influence, and bring forth evil fruit, as in the case of the Nicolaitans.

V. The central figure of this whole section of our narrative is St. Stephen. He is introduced into the narrative with the same startling suddenness which we may note in the case of Barnabas and of Elijah. He runs a rapid course, flings all, Apostles and every one else, into the shade for a time, and then disappears, exemplifying those fruitful sayings of inspiration, so true in our every-day experience of Gods dealings, “The first shall be last, and the last first.” “Paul may plant, Apollos may water, but it is God alone that giveth the increase.” Stephen, full of grace and power, did great signs and wonders among the people. These two words, grace and power, are closely connected. Their union in this passage is significant. It was not the intellect, or the eloquence, or the activity of St. Stephen which made him powerful among the people and crowned his labours with such success. It was his abundant grace. Eloquence and learning, active days and laborious nights, are good and necessary things. God uses them and demands them from His people. He chooses to use human agencies, and therefore demands that the human agents shall give Him of their best, and not offer to Him the blind and lame of their flock. But these things will be utterly useless and ineffective apart from Christ and the power of His grace. The Church of Christ is a supernatural society, and the work of Christ is a supernatural work, and in that work the grace of Christ is absolutely necessary to make any human gift or exertion effectual in carrying out His purposes of love and mercy. This is an age of organisations and committees and boards; and some good men are so wrapped up in them that they have no time to think of anything else. To this busy age these words, “Stephen, full of grace and power,” convey a useful warning, teaching that the best organisations and schemes will be useless to produce Stephens power unless Stephens grace be found there as well. This passage is a prophecy and picture of the future in another aspect. The fulness of grace in Stephen wrought powerfully amongst the people. It was the savour of life unto life in some. But in others it was a savour of death unto death, and provoked them to evil deeds, for they suborned men “which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.”

We get in these words, in this false accusation, even through its falsehood, a glimpse into the character of St. Stephens preaching. A false accusation need not be necessarily altogether false. Perhaps rather we should say that, in order to be effective for mischief, a twisted, distorted charge, with some basis of truth, some semblance of justification about it, is the best for the accusers purpose, and the most difficult for the defendant to answer. St. Stephen was ripening for heaven more rapidly than the Apostles themselves. He was learning more rapidly than St. Peter himself the true spiritual meaning of the Christian scheme. He had taught in no ambiguous language the universal character of the Gospel and the catholic mission of the Church. He had expanded and applied the magnificent declarations of the Master Himself, “The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father”; “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” And then the narrow-minded Grecian Jews, anxious to vindicate their orthodoxy, which was doubted by their Hebrew brethren, distorted Stephens wider and grander conceptions into a charge of blasphemy against the holy man. What a picture of the future of Christs best and truest witnesses, especially when insisting on some nobler and wider or forgotten aspect of truth. Their teaching has been ever suspected, distorted, accused as blasphemous; and so it must ever be. And yet Gods servants, when they find themselves thus misrepresented, can realise to themselves that they are but following the course which the saints of every age have run, that they are being made like unto the image of Stephen the first martyr, and of Jesus Christ Himself, the King of Saints, who suffered under a similar accusation. The mere popularity-hunter will, of course, carefully eschew such charges and suspicions. His object is human praise and reward, and he shapes his teaching so as to carefully avoid giving offence. But then the mere popularity-hunter seeks his reward here below, and very often gets it. Stephen, however, and every true teacher looks not for reward in this world. Stephen taught truth as God revealed it to his soul. He suffered the consequence, and then received his crown from that Almighty Judge before whose awful tribunal he ever consciously stood. Misrepresentation must ever be expected by Gods true servants. It must be discounted, borne with patiently, taken as a trial of faith and patience, and then, in Gods own time, it will turn out to our greater blessing. One consideration alone ought to prove sufficient to console us under such circumstances. If our teaching was not proving injurious to his cause, the Evil One would not trouble himself about it. Let us only take good heed lest our own self-love and vanity should lead us to annoy ourselves too much about the slander or the evil report, remembering that misrepresentation and slander is ever the portion of Gods servants. Jesus Christ and Stephen were thus treated. St. Pauls teaching was accused of tending to licentiousness; the earliest Christians were accused of vilest practices; St. Athanasius in his struggles for truth was accused of rebellion and murder; the Reformers were accused of lawlessness; John Wesley of Romanism and disloyalty; William Wilberforce of being an enemy to British trade; John Howard of being an encourager of crime and immorality. Let us be content then if our lot be with the saints, and our portion be that of the servants of the Most High.

Again, we learn from this place how religious zeal can overthrow religion and work out the purposes of evil. Religious zeal, mere party spirit taking the place of real religion, led the Hellenists to suborn men and falsely accuse St. Stephen. They made an idol of the system of Judaism, and forgot its spirit. They worshipped their idol so much that they were ready to break the commandments of God for its sake. The dangers of party spirit in matters of religion, and the evil deeds which have been done in apparent zeal for God and real zeal for the devil, these are still the lessons, true for the future ages of the Church, which we read in this passage. And how true to life has even our own age found this prophetic picture. Men cannot indeed now suborn men and bring fatal charges against them in matters of religion, and yet they can fall into exactly the same crime. Party religion and party zeal lead men into precisely the same courses as they did in the days of St. Stephen. Partisanship causes them to violate all the laws of honour, of honesty, of Christian charity, imagining that they are thereby advancing the cause of Christ, forgetting that they are acting on the rule which the Scriptures repudiate, – they are doing evil that good may come, – and striving to further Christs kingdom by a violation of His fundamental precepts. Oh for more of the spirit of true charity, which will lead men to support their own views in a spirit of Christian love! Oh for more of that true grasp of Christianity which will teach that a breach of Christian charity is far worse than any amount of speculative error! The error, as we think it, may be in reality Gods own truth; but the violation of Gods law implied in such conduct as Stephens adversaries displayed, and as party zeal now often prompts, can never be otherwise than contrary to the mind and law of Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary