Martyrdom of Stephen— Acts 6:8-8:3 By Pastor Jim Gray
Part 4. The Stoning of Stephen continued. 7:51-8:3
Climax—the
Indictment (7:51-53).
Now
everything changes. What had been inferred now becomes direct. The accused
become the accuser. He turns upon them without mercy, inflicting scorching
truth that hits them squarely where they are. “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are
always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which
one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had
previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and
murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels,
and [yet] did not keep it” (7:51-53). These where direct words that
indicted them for they were committing the same sins of their fathers, but to a
greater degree. There also is a change of relationship; Stephen refers to “your fathers,” instead of “our fathers”
(cf. 7:19, 39, 44). He is indicating a divide between believing Israel (the remnant)
and unbelieving Israel. The indictment is couched in Old Testament
language. There are five major
indictments against them: One count of unremitting pride and self-will (cf.
Exodus 33:5); one count of murder; one count of resisting the Holy Spirit (cf.
Isaiah 63:10); one count of disloyalty (cf. Lev. 26:41, Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26); and
one count of Law breaking. Observe there is no mention of ignorance in this
indictment. They are responsible.
The
indictments end Stephen’s speech. In this speech we can detect certain themes:
· Their continued failure to
recognize the working of God as a nation.
Their history shows it; and now they are doing the same.
· They have departed from the
primary purpose of the nation and God’s by focusing on the secondary outward
issues (The Land, Moses and the Law, and the Temple), but not inward issues of
the heart and salvation. As the saying goes, “they majored in minors.” God help
us from doing the same!
· Their rejection of the God’s
anointed leaders and servants, and now they were rejecting the very Anointed,
Jesus. Their
rejection of Messiah is consistent with their historic pattern of resistance
against the things of God. They truly would not have this man to reign over them. They
killed him, and now they were resisting the Holy Spirit of God. Their reaction
to this speech and Stephen indicates this resistance and rejection of the Holy
Spirit. Stam observes: “Though Stephen had stood before them
filled with the Holy Spirit and supernaturally transformed as he dealt with
them, they would not listen. They had there and then resisted the Holy Spirit….”[1]
The sermon itself reveals
certain things:
· The sermon is not really
a defense at all, rather a prosecuting speech leading to charges and to an
indictment of the unbelieving Israel.
· The sermon is a
historical review showing the listeners and the nation their problem—continued
rejection of God and His servants.
· It is an Old Testament
survey. Much of it is direct quotations from the Old Testament.
· The emphasis of the
sermon is not evangelistic. There is no one saved as a result of the sermon.
There is no reference to salvation or repentance in the sermon.
· It is a judicial sermon.
The purpose of the sermon is to indict the leadership for repeating the sins of
history. There is a progress of rejection within their history climaxing with
the rejection of the Messiah, and now resisting the Holy Spirit. This resisting
is an ongoing progressive process in Acts: First came a warning of words to the
Apostles (Acts 4:17). Second came physical beating (Acts 5:40). Now, as we
shall see, comes murder (7:58-56).
· The sermon clearly puts
the death of Christ and the resisting of the Holy Spirit at their feet of the
Jewish leadership.
The
Stoning of Stephen—7:54-60.
Voices of rage (7:54)
Voices of rage (7:54)
The reaction of the leadership was swift and sure. “The convicting power of the truth of God either causes men to repent or to rebel, and rebel they did!”[2] “Now when they heard this, there were cut to the quick, and they [began] gnashing their teeth at him” (7:54). The phrase cut to the quick is a figure of speech indicating a painful hurt. It speaks of conviction and also being offended. Many times the truth hurts. Gnashing their teeth pictures their antagonism and rage, often a reaction toward the righteous (Psa. 35:16; 27:12; 112:10; Lam 2:16). In the Gospels it is used of rejecters of the Kingdom and their judgment (Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28). In this context the rage is directed at Stephen. They were so infuriated that Stephen never really got to finish his sermon. Their anger and outburst interrupted the sermon, (indicated by the now when they heard this), and never came to a conclusion. Only God knows what would have been said, if Stephen was able to finish. Would salvation and repentance have been offered? Did their interruption seal their fate? They clearly sealed their own destiny and that of the nation with this reaction.
The Vision (7:55-56)
In the midst
of crisis, stands cool, claim and collected Stephen. Luke clearly is pointing
to a contrast between him and the leadership of Israel, as indicated by the
word But, a word of contrast. “But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed
intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right
at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened up and
the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’” (7:55-56). His source of
strength and empowerment in such a time was “being full of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Acts 6:5, 10).
This filling
enabled Stephen to look into heaven (no doubt a vision). Stephen gazed intently (see comments on Acts
1:10) into heaven (7:55-56). Here we
have ascension language (cf. 1:9-10). Bock calls the event “a revelatory experience.”[3]
Larkin observes that it “positively culminates the climactic
thesis of Stephen’s sermon: God dwells in heaven, not in temples made with hand
(7:48-50).”[4] Two
elements of the vision are revealed: First, the glory of God. This is the same glory as appeared to Abraham (cf.
7:2). Glory is the manifestation of the divine nature. It given is association
with Jesus, indicating Jesus is in the presence of God, and in fact co-equal in
his essence. It should be noted, however,
when Stephen speaks of the vision in verse 56 he does not mention the glory.
There may be two possibilities as to why. First, simply he sees the emphasis of
the vision on the person of Christ, and does not mention the glory. Second, he
considers the glory of God as Jesus.
Second, He
sees Jesus standing at the right hand of
God and that is what he reports. The fact that it is repeated twice, in vv.
55-56, indicates emphasis and importance. However, the significance has been
taken in various ways, although some do not attach any significance to it.[5] Since this
is the only time Jesus is seen standing at the right hand of God, the
significance is hard to pin down. The views include:
· Ready to Return View. Ike
Sidebottom seems to hold this view. He says concerning Jesus standing:
“It seems that when Stephen sealed his testimony with his own
blood, Israel’s Savior was standing in the heavenlies ready to return the
moment His chosen people believed the Kingdom message. Upon their rejection of
this message, he took His seat as the Head of the church, which is His body.”[6]
I
see three problems with this view. First, there is no indication of Israel
accepting the offered kingdom. The tone of the sermon concerns the continued
and progressive rejection by the nation and its leadership. Second, there is no
indication in Scripture that Christ sitting at the right hand of God is
exclusively related to the Church, the body of Christ. Did not Jesus tell
Israel and the Kingdom saints that he would sit at the right hand of God? (Mark
14:62; Luke 22:69). The sitting at the right hand of God is the result of the
accomplishing of salvation by paying the price for sin (Heb. 1:3; 10:12; 12:2),
and His High Priestly work (Heb. 8:1-2). Third, the term Son of Man, has
special reference to His Incarnation and Messiahship.
· The Welcome View. The most take the that he is standing to
welcome the martyred. A variation of this view seems to be that every believer
at death sees Christ standing to welcome him. However, this does away with the
status of this being a onetime event. Overall this view, while it has some
merit, does not completely satisfy.
· The Witness View. Bruce holds this, stating: “Jesus stands up as witness or advocate in Stephen’s defense.”[7] This view
sees Jesus as judge and witness. Bock says, “Stephen’s
vindication by the standing Son of Man implies Jesus’ vindication as well
because Jesus is functioning in a manner that assumes the previous divine
exaltation and vindication of Jesus.” [8]
There is some merit to this position.
· Judgment View. Stam connects the statement of Mark 16:19
and Psa. 110:1 which emphasizes that Christ is at the right hand of God “until I make Thine enemies thy footstool”
(KJV). He states that “He is to remain seated with His
Father as a royal Exile only ‘until’ the time when His enemies shall be made
His footstool.”[9] Standing
with Old Testament prophecies about God rising up in judgment against his
enemies (cf. Psa. 7:6; 9:19; Isa. 3:13). Now with Israel being like the heathen
in rejection; the conditions were ripe for God’s execution of wrath. Stam notes
that God in His grace postponed the judgment with the present dispensation of
grace.[10] Peterson
holds to a judgment view as well, saying that in this context, “it is more likely to be a way of asserting the readiness of
the Son of Man to act in judgment against those who deny him (cf. Isa. 3:13,
where standing is the posture for judgment).[11]
This last view has the most merit.
However, I look upon this as a dispensational judgment. While the final
judgment may have been postponed, the spiritual judgment of the nation was not.
They were blinded and set aside. Jesus is standing to dispense this judgment.
Baxter notes that “in the miracles, message, and
martyrdom of Stephen we see a final indictment of the nation.”[12] I agree
with his conclusion: “The emergent primary
significance of this first part of the Acts is: THE RENEWED REJECTION OF THE
KINGDOM OFFICIALLY AT THE JEWISH CAPITAL.”[13]
This is the major pivotal points in the books of Acts. From this point,
everything moves outside of Jerusalem and the nation. The swing is clearly seen
in the next four chapters: Samaria (Acts 9), Damascus (Acts 9), Caesarea (Acts
10), and Antioch (11), with Antioch becoming the new headquarters for the
spreading of the Gospel. Acts records the fall of Israel and the rise of the
Gentiles. This all started with Jesus standing executing spiritual judgment
upon the nation for their continued rejection of their Messiah and the Holy
Spirit. It was the start of Israel being set aside, making it possible for the
Gentiles to be brought in apart from the nation. The hardening of Israel was
beginning and will not ease “until the
fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25). This event will open
the way for a new apostle—Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), and
the building of Jew and Gentile into one new organism (Eph. 3:1-10). The nation
was being set aside, so a new dispensation could begin, that which Paul calls
the dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3:1-10). That this judgment pertains to
Israel is reinforced by the title Son of
Man. This is a Messianic title. It is used in the Old Testament to refer to
a man (Ezekiel 2:1; Psa. 8:4). However, it came to be used of the divine
personage of the Messiah (Dan. 7:13-14, Psa. 110:1). Jesus uses the title of
Himself in the Gospels. The title is not used outside the relationship of the
Messiah to Israel.
The Dying Victim (7:57-60).
After
declaring the vision, “They cried out
with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse.
When they had driven him out of the city, they began stone him; and the witness
laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They went on
stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, received my
spirit!” Then falling on his knees, he cried of out with a loud voice, “Lord do
not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep”
(7:57-60). In all likelihood, when Stephen told them of the vision, the crowd
considered Stephen was blaspheming by asserting Jesus was the Son of Man. They
in a hysteric rush chased Stephen outside the city, and stoned him according to
the law (Lev. 24:14-16; Deut. 13:9; 17:7). The method of stoning is described
by Barclay: The criminal was taken to a height and thrown down. The
witnesses had to do the actual throwing down. If the fall killed the man good
and well; if not, great boulders were hurled down upon him until finally he
died.[14]
How
organized this action was is hard to say. The legality of this event has been
debated, but some type of formality seems to be held. The text does say that
the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of Saul. This is our first
introduction to Saul, who will become the great Apostle Paul.[15] He is
called a “young man,” however “in Jewish circles, one was considered young
up to age 40.”[16] Saul
(i.e. Paul) indicates that his present and act indicates he was already an
accepted leader in antagonism toward believers. The event was not interfered
with by the Romans. There were some executions that were under the jurisdiction
of the Sanhedrin.
Like the
death of Jesus who prayed on the cross, Stephen gives audible prayers that echo
the prayers of Jesus on the cross: First, he prays for the acceptableness of
His sacrifice by His spirit to the Lord Jesus (cf. Luke 23:46). In this prayer,
Stephen again is stating the deity of Christ. And like Jesus, he prays for the
sin not be held against them (cf. Luke 23:34). Stephen in these prayers is
showing his innocence and his grace.[17]
Second, these prayers are similarities that is carried throughout the text:
Stephen, like Jesus, ministered by signs and wonders, spoke with wisdom that
could not be refuted, was filled with the Spirit, and was charged with
blasphemy for which he died. Third, in the person of Stephen, the nation is
rejecting the Holy Spirit just like they rejected God the Son. Stam points out
the progression of three important deaths during this period around which
change their course in history: John the Baptist, which they permitted; Christ,
which they demanded; and Stephen which they committed.[18]
Baxter says in this event “was
willful, knowing, blatant refusal of divine testimony. The nation was publicly
tried and found guilty.”[19] Baker
observes: “Whether or not his prayer was
answered, we know that Jerusalem was spared for the time being, and that the
other Jews who were dispersed throughout the Roman world were given the
opportunity to hear the gospel and to repent.”[20]
As frantic
as the tone of the text is, it ends with a picture of peace and solitude— “he fell asleep” (7:60). He died in the
peaceful assurance of the life to come. Sleep is a common metaphor for death of
the believer in Scripture (cf. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:6; I Kings 2:10; Isa.
14:18; John 11:11; Acts 13:36; I Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13-15;
2 Peter 3:4).
In
conclusion of this great event we see:
· Stephen spoke for Jesus, not
simply about Jesus. We see Jesus words reflected in the last verses of the
chapter.
· This sermon and event had a
great impact on its listeners, including Saul. Stephen’s preaching was powerful
and persuasive it impacted everyone present.
· We see the powerful used of
the Word of God in preaching. Stephen used the Word to confront people with the
truth. Stephen’s review was an indictment to demonstrate Israel’s need for
repentance.
· The act of rejection that
sealed the fate of Israel and the turning to the Gentiles.
PARALLES
BETWEEN THE KILLING OF JESUS AND STEPHEN[21]
JESUS
|
EVENT
|
STEPHEN
|
Mark 14:53
|
Tried
before Sanhedrin and the High Priest
|
Acts 6:12,
7:1
|
Mark 14:56-57; Matt. 26:60-61
|
False Witnesses
|
Acts 6:13
|
Mark 14:53; Acts 6:12, 7:1
|
Testimony
of the destruction of the Temple
|
Acts 6:14
|
Mark 15:58
|
Temple
“made with hands”
|
Acts 7:48
|
Mark 24:62
|
The Son of
Man saying
|
Acts 7:56
|
Mark 16:64; Matt. 26:63
|
Blasphemy
charged
|
Acts 6:11
|
Mark 14:61; Matt. 26:61
|
The
question of the High Priest Caiaphas
|
Acts 7:1
|
Luke 23:46
|
Committal
of spirit
|
Acts 7:59
|
Mark
15:34, 37
|
Cry out
with a loud voice
|
Acts 7:60
|
Luke 23:34
|
Intercession
for enemies forgiveness
|
Acts 7:60
|
Result of
Stephen’s Martyrdom—8:1-3.
With Stephen, the persecution of believers by the Jewish leadership began in earnest. Persecution is the climax of progressive actions by the leadership in Acts (warning, jailing, flogging, and death). Being a believer will now lead to paying the ultimate price by believers for that belief. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are linked by through the subject of persecution. The first 3 verses of this chapter bring the stoning of Stephen to an end, while at the same time it begins the activity of Saul. Immediately, Luke shows that “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death” (8:1a). This is a concluding statement to the events of chapter 7. It speaks of the attitude of positive accord with, not just passive consent to death of Stephen. In doing so, he was following not only the stream of opinion, but his religious loyalty. He saw Stephen as a rebel to religious authority. Some relate this passage to Acts 26:10 to indicate Paul voted in the Sanhedrin. However, that connection is questionable at best. Whatever the case, it is clear Saul steps up the persecution “beyond measure” (Gal. 1:13).
What the
stoning of Stephen does is unleash the hostility of the leadership of Israel
against the remnant of believers found in the city of Jerusalem. It was the
starting point: “And on that day a great
persecution initiated against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all
scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles”
(8:1). Luke makes clear that this event initiated the greet persecution of the
church. It was their answer to the offer of the kingdom. “Israel was in the process of confirming its tragic choice to
reject Jesus as her Messiah.”[22] They will
not repent nor listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit. This was the first great
persecution of believers by Israelites. It is also a fulfillment of Jesus’
prediction (Luke 11:49, 21:12). The martyrdom of Stephen and continued
persecution starts the push of evangelism away from the Jewish capital. They
scattered from the city into the country (cf. Acts 11:19). It is also clear
that the word all does not mean all
without exception, but indicates many of them scattered. This is clear because
there were still believers in the city who were being hunted down and
imprisoned.
Some
maintain that this persecution was against Hellenistic Jews only.[23] There
seems to be two points in its favor: First, Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew.
Second, the Apostles could stay in the city because the persecution was against
the Hellenistic Jews and devout Gentiles who believed in the God of Israel, not
the true Hebrews. (If that is the case, the word all could refer to all the
Hellenistic Jews which fled). The Twelve being Hebrews did not need to leave
the city. However, the text does not put that type of limitation on the
persecution. It rather seems to indicate an unlimited persecution within the
city (cf. 8:3). The text does not distinguish between Hellenistic and homeland
Jews. Also, Paul later says he was out to destroy the church (Gal. 1:13), in a
context that indicates the whole believing assembly, not just a portion of it.
He also says he punished believers in every synagogue, not just the Hellenistic
synagogues (Acts 26:11).
In light of
this persecution, why did the Apostles stay in Jerusalem? Was it because they
were homeland Jews, not Hellenistic Jews? Such a view is highly questionable
and unlikely. Harrison suggests the Apostles were not the subject of
persecution because of their popularity and respect of many in Jerusalem.[24] Others
say because of their duty to the believers in Jerusalem. This has some merit.
They were commissioned to start at Jerusalem and then to the rest of the world.
Their duty to reach Jerusalem had not been accomplished. The apostles knew
their future and hope was tied to the city (cf. Luke 12:32; Matt. 19:28 cf.
21:43). While they may be coming to realize that the nation was rejecting the
offer of the kingdom, their duty was clearly to stay in the city and continue
with their mission. They knew that the Lord had told them that they were to
preach repentance to all nations, “beginning
at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). No doubt they felt it was still their duty to
reach Jerusalem. They saw no reason to change their task, but to remain
faithful to preach at Jerusalem.
This section
of the text, while centering on persecution, alternates between the persecution
and Stephen murder. Note the pattern:
Approval of Stephen’s murder
(8:1a)
Beginning of
Persecution (8:1b)
Burial of Stephen (8:2)
Saul ravaging the
church (8:3)
From this
pattern we notice how Luke ties in the death of Stephen with the beginning of
the persecution of believers. This section becomes both transitional in
character as well as a summary of events connected with Stephen. It makes the
transition to why Phillip is ministering in Samaria and sums up the effect of
Stephen’s murder.
The burial
record (8:2) almost seems out of place in light of the second half of verse 1.
However, it is given to reinforce the connection of persecution with the events
of Stephen’s murder. Luke states: “[Some]
devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him” (8:2). It
may well be that Luke is not only trying to reinforce the connection of
persecution with the Stephen event, but also to complete the similarity to
Christ life and death (cf. Luke 23:50-53). It was done by devout men, a term that is also used of believing men of other
races. The lamentation reminds us of the ladies in Luke 23:27. It has been
pointed out that, “The Mishnah considered open
lamentation for someone who had suffered death by stoning as inappropriate.”[25] The Greek
word for lamentation is only here in the NT, and means a
beating of the breast, thus a wailing or lamentation, not simply mourning. This
could indicate a defiant act or a belief that this was not a legal execution.[26] It has
been a long tradition, dating back to Augustine’s endorsement, that places
Gamaliel and Nicodemus (Sanhedrin’s believing members) at the burial, and later
was buried in the same spot.[27]
“But Saul [began] ravaging the church,
entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them
in prison” (8:3). While the Sadducees made up most of the Sanhedrin, now
Saul the Pharisee steps in. Stephen’s execution invigorated Saul’s retaliation
against the church. The word ravaging
is found only here in the NT, meaning to make havoc of, or ravage. Knowling
says the classical meaning is used of scourging and torturing, of armies
causing waste and destruction, and in the medical field the word speaks of the
ravages of disease.[28] It examples
ruthless and vicious cruelty. The severity of the persecution by Saul is
reinforced in the text showing this included a house to house search, for house
meetings were common among the remnant (Acts 2:46; 5:42). Saul was on a search
and destroy mission.
It must be noted
the word church has its normal
meaning of assembly (O.T., congregation—Isa. 7:38), and should not be taken in
the universal since. Peterson explains, “At
this critical point in the narrative, that significant title for the people of
God in the OT is applied again to Jewish believers in Jesus (5:11; 11:22;
12:1-5).”[29] In Acts,
the word church always denotes a
local congregation or assembly. In this case the impetus of the persecution was
against the Jewish local church in Jerusalem.
[1] Stam, ACTS, 229. Stam goes on to call this
act of resisting is the unpardonable sin. However, this is questionable since
the unpardonable sin is identified with blasphemy (Matt. 12:31-32), not with
resisting. I view this blasphemy taking
place in Acts 13:46, which is associated with the first official declaration of
turning to the Gentiles.
[2] Baker, ACTS, 42.
[3] Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 310-311.
[4] Larkin, TCNT: ACTS, 121.
[5] Larkin is one, Ibid, 121-122. Phillips also
does not attribute significance to the standing, EXPLORING ACTS, 143.
[6] Ike Sidebottom, A DISPENSATIONAL STUDY OF THE
BOOK OF ACTS, Grace
Bible Church
[7] Bruce, NICNT: ACTS, 156.
[8] Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 313.
[9] Stam, ACTS, 1:233; Jordan, Richard, “Three
Pivotal Points in the Book of Acts,” THE GRACE JOURNAL, September 2005, 3.
[10] Stam, ACTS, 1:234.
[11] Peterson, PNTC: ACTS, 267.
[12] Baxter, STRATEGIC GRASP, 312.
[13] Ibid, 315. The emphasis is his.
[14] Barclay, ACTS, 62.
[15] Paul’s recollection is found in Acts 22:20.
[16] Peterson, PNTC: ACTS 268.
[17] Larkin, TNTC: ACTS, 122-123.
[18] Stam, ACTS, 240.
[19] Baxter, STRATEGIC GRASP, 314.
[20] Baker, ACTS, 43.
[21] Listed in Witherington, ACTS, 253.
[22] Toussaint, BKC: ACTS, 371.
[23] Bruce, NICNT: ACTS, 162-163; Constable, ACTS,
119.
[24] Harrison ,
ACTS, 139. Also, Witherington, ACTS, 278 fn 330.
[25] Constable, ACTS, 119.
[26] Peterson, PNTC: ACTS, 276; Bock, BECNT: ACTS,
319.
[27] Knowling, EGK, ACTS, 210.
[28] Ibid, 210.
[29] Peterson, PNTC: ACTS, 277.
