Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Stephen - Part 3


Martyrdom of Stephen— Acts 6:8-8:3     By Pastor Jim Gray


Part 3. The Speech of Stephen continued. 7:17-50

      


God Provided a Savior: Moses—7:17-43

Stephen now proceeds to Moses. The major emphases in this section of his speech are: (1) God raise a deliverer for His people.  (2) God works outside the land. (3) To set up the idea of rejection by God’s people of His deliverer. He sees Jesus as the new Moses. Stephen spends more time on Moses than anyone else. The pattern of the life of Jesus with the presentation of Moses by Stephen is parallel:[1]

MOSES                                                                 JESUS

Powerful in words and works (Acts 7:22)
Powerful in words and works (Luke 24:19)
Educated in wisdom (Acts 7:22)
Educated in wisdom (Luke 24:19, 52)
Denied (7:35)
Denied (Acts 3:14, 17, 26)
Leader (7:35)
Leader (Acts 3:13)
Ascends to Mt Sinai (7:38)
Jesus ascends to heaven (Acts 2:33)
The life of Moses can be divided into three 40-year periods:

The 40 years in Egypt—7:17-28

Time of Bondage. “But as the time the promise was approaching which God assured to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose another king over Egypt who knew nothing about Joseph. It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive” (7:17-19). God blessed the people in Egypt as the promise was approaching. The exodus is viewed in the light of the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic. Note that it was an appointed time (the time of the promise was approaching)—fulfillment language. Just like the death of Christ (Gal 4:4) and Pentecost (Acts 2:16), all were appointed times of fulfillment. At the time in Egypt, God’s people were increasing in numbers (Exodus 1:8-16). The increase brought fear to the Egyptians. When a new king arose, he plotted to decrease the population. The word another means another of a different kind. It suggests that a new dynasty in Egypt came into power. This new king ordered the male children killed. Infanticide was a common method of limiting population in the ancient world, even during the New Testament times (cf. Matt. 2:16-23). Like their forefathers, Israel was living in appointed times. 

Birth of Moses. “It was at this time that Moses was born, and he was lovely in the sight of God and he was nurtured three months in his father’s home. And after he had been set outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him away and nurtured him as her own son” (7:20-21).  Again, God works in His time, and when His appointed time had come, Moses was (Ex. 2:2-10). described as being “lovely in the sight of God.” This is a Hebrew idiom of beauty. Bock says it deals more with breeding than looks.[2] It signifies grace. Moses from the very start was an object of God’s grace and favored for special work in the plan and purpose of God. At the age of three months, Moses was hidden in a basket on the river Nile, where the daughter of Pharaoh found and took him. Phillips identifies her as Hatshepsut, the daughter of Thutmose I (1528-1508 BC).[3] The term for took him away[4] (took him up--KJV) can mean either to lift up or to kill. Here in the middle voice, it indicates that Moses was lifted up out of the river for one’s self. It has the idea of lifting up to nurture him as her child. In the LXX it is the word indicating the origin and meaning of Moses name. He was drawn up out of the water. Could it be that the word is used to indicate that not only was he lifted out of the water, but that murder would be a part of his life as well (7:24,28)?

Education of Moses. “Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds” (7:22). Moses had a high degree of learning. He was educated in one of the highest and best education systems at that time. Every indication is that he was an honor student. Some have taken the words man of power in words and deeds as a summary statement of all of Moses life, stating that Moses said he was not a good speaker (Ex. 4:10-17).[5] This is an unnecessary conclusion; it speaks of his words as a ruler. As the second in command his words and deeds where powerful. It should not be taken as to the manner of Moses speech but the authority of his words and deeds. His word would be law.

Moses and His Brethren. After giving a brief background of Moses in Egypt, Stephen now jumps to the end of his stay in Egypt. It was the event that made Moses leave Egypt and give up his seat of power and privilege. Acts 7:23-28 makes three points:
·The Visit of Moses. “But when he was approaching the age of forty, it entered his mind to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel” (7:23). At this point in his life, he began thinking about His own people—his heritage. While he was raised in a pagan court, Moses was still uneasy in his heart and soul. Even in this pagan environment, Moses was able to sustain and act in faith (Heb. 11:24-26). He made a decision to visit his people, the sons of Israel. There is a number of terms used to confirm that Stephen saw these events in a fulfillment motif[6]approaching the age of forty, entered his mind (lit. arose in Moses’ heart), God was granting, etc. Stephen sees and emphasizes the outworking of the plan of God in the life of Moses. The word visit is an interesting word, for it is important to Luke who uses it in a divine sense of Godly visits or the visitation of God (Luke 1:68; 7:16; 19:44)[7] No doubt, Stephen is using the word as a parallel to Jesus’ life and visitation. Moses, like Jesus, leaves his royal surroundings to go to the slave camps to visit his people and to help them. The passage takes on the feel of identification as well as visitation.
· The Intervention of Moses. “And when he saw one [of the] being treated unjustly, he defended him and took vengeance for the suppressed by striking down the Egyptian” (7:24). Slavery breeds social and physical mistreatment and injustice. On his visit to his brethren, Moses observes one of his brethren being physically abused. This led Moses to come to the Israelite’s defense by exacting vengeance and fatally hitting the Egyptian.
· The Misreading of Moses. It is clear that the Israelites of Moses day misread the motive of Moses. “And he supposed that his brethren understood that God was granting them deliverance through him, but they did not understand” (7:25). This verse reveals the thoughts of Moses. Inherent in this statement are several factors: (1) It indicates Moses religious and spiritual condition while at the same time a ruler of Egypt. (2) He sees himself as carrying out the will of God. (3) He understands His calling or mission in life. (4) He was an agent or instrument of God. The phrase “was granting them” indicates Moses saw his action as the first step of deliverance.[8] Lenski, however, is right when he observes that much here is veiled,[9] and there are unanswered questions. While Moses had some insight into these things, the people did not. They did not understand. Stephen centers upon their misreading and misunderstanding Moses. “On the following day he appeared to them as they were fighting together, and he tried to reconcile them in peace, saying, ‘Men, you are brethren, why do you injure one another?’ But the one who was injuring his neighbor pushed him away, saying, “Who made you a ruler and judge over us? You do not mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?’ (7:26-28). Moses is confronted with his act. It must have been a shock to him. He thought no one knew of the event. But be sure your sin will find you out. Israel would not have this man to rule over them. Constable observes, “Moses’ brethren feared that he might use his power to destroy them rather than help them. Similarly, the Jewish leaders feared that Jesus with His supernatural abilities might bring them harm rather than deliverance and blessing (cf. John 11:47-48).[10] One cannot miss the parallel here between Israel of history, and Israel’s present leadership. The theme of rejection is seen. It is a rejection of ignorance (cf. 3:17). Stephen is setting them up his accusation of their rejection of the present leadership.

Upon realization that his secret is out, “Moses fled and became an alien in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons” (7:28). Cf. Exodus 2:11-12; Hebrews 11:27. Moses is not only in exile, but a fugitive from justice. Moses departing was also part of God’s plan. Like his forefathers, he becomes a sojourner in a foreign land.

40 Years in Midian (7:29-34)

Stephen now deals with the call of Moses. He skips all of the forty years leading to this event at the end of this time. For 40 years he was shepherding his flock in the wilderness of Midian. Then, “After forty years had passed…” (7:30). (Again, the fulfillment motif is used.)  It was a time Moses’ world is turned upside down. “An angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush. When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look [more] closely, there came the voice of the Lord: ‘I AM the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.’ Moses shook with fear and would not venture to look. But the Lord said to Him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is Holy ground. I have certainly seen the oppression of My people in Egypt and have heard their groans, and I have come down to rescue them; come now, and I will send you to Egypt’” (7:30-34).  God appears to Moses. The angel here is none other than the Angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Christ (cf. Exodus 3:2, 6; 4:2; John 12:41; 1 Cor. 10:1-4; Heb. 11:26). The angel is mentioned again in 7:35, 38, 53. I draw our attention to two aspects that can be seen in the context of Stephens’s circumstances:
· The event bestows God’s endorsement to the rejected one. Moses was rejected by the nation 40 years before. Stephen is reinforcing the motif of God’s leadership and their rejection of those leaders and leads to the climax of the sermon where rejection is made more explicit.
· For a second time, Stephen is showing that God’s revelation is not confined to the temple or the land. Both Moses commission and later the Law is given at Mt Sinai. Bock notes: “The important revelation came in the desert. The rabbis taught that this locale showed that no place was too desolate for God’s presence…. Given the debate about the sacredness of the temple, Stephen appears to make a similar point. Holy Ground is where God is.”[11]

40 Years in the wilderness (7:35-43)

At this point, Stephen’s speech becomes more dramatic and explicit by a series of emphatic statements. These emphatic statements emphasize Moses’ success as a deliverer through the power of God. These statements are marked off by the demonstrative pronouns normally translated with the word “this” in our text, but not exclusively.[12] These statements are:

· This (touton) Moses whom they disowned, saying ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ (7:35).
· The one (touton) whom God sent to be both a ruler and a delivered with the heap of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush. (7:35).
· This (houtos) man led them out performing wonders and signs in the land` of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. (7:36).
· This (houtos) is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren.’ (7:37).
· This (houtos)is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers, and he received living oracles to pass on to you. (7:38).


Clearly, Stephen is setting up Moses as a type of Christ. Stephen sees Jesus as the promised prophet that Moses foretold (7:37). Moses was a deliverer, prophet, working signs and wonders, and giver of the words of life. In giving these emphatic statements about the greatness of Moses as the agent of God now turns to the reaction by the people of Israel. In Acts 7:39-42 he reinforces and enhances the rejection by the nation of God’s ruler. “Our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt” (7:39). They did this of their own volition. The word has the meaning to exercise the will, indicating a choice exercised or intent fulfilled for one’s own pleasure or purpose. In this context it appears to be much stronger than simply unwilling, rather it has the idea of refusal.[13] They refused to be obedient. The context of this section is clothed in contemptuous and derogatory tone toward Moses and God.[14] This disobedience was marked by three things; (1) Worldliness— “in their hearts turned back to Egypt” (7:39). While they may have left Egypt, Egypt did not leave them. (2) Idolatry— “Saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us, for this Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt—we do not know what happened to him.At that time they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.” (7:40-41). Interestingly they did not ask Aaron to take the place of Moses, but for idols to take the place of God. Idolatry is apostasy (cf. Exodus 20:3-4). It appeals to the senses—it can be seen, felt, and touch—and removes the purely spiritual unreality of the presence of the Divine. (3) Imprudence— “and were rejoicing in the works of their hands” (7:41). Man always wants to add his works to the worship of God. In this case, as always, they rejoiced in adding to the work of God. The Greek tense (imperfect) indicates that of a continuous rejoicing or celebration. The folly of this! We have nothing to add. Yet idolatry gives the gratification of the works of their hands, as well as something visible to worship. To try to do so is imprudence on our part and constitutes rebellion.

The result of such actions was God’s denial and judgment. “But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, ‘It was not to Me that you offered victims and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, O house of Israel? You also took along the tabernacle of Molach and the star of the God Rompha, the images which you made to worship, I also will remove you beyond Babylon” (7:41-43). Transgression is always costly. The action of God is two-fold:
· He turned away from them. The word means to change or turn one’s course of dealing, in the middle voice, indicating the turning of oneself about. 
· He gave them over to their desire. Paul uses the same language in Romans 1:24, 26, 28, of the Gentiles. Stephen is here using it in reference to Israel. Israel became the same as Gentiles by their actions. Thus, God gave them over to their desires. Bruce remarks that “These are terrible words, but the principle that men and women are given up to the due consequences of their own settle choice is well established in scripture and experience.[15] What he gave them over too was to serve the host of heaven.  This phrase is not referring to the God of creation, but to the heavenly creation—the sun, moon, and stars. It is a rebuke of their disobedience by such worship through rejection and unfaithfulness to the Word of God This type of worship by the Jews is well documented throughout the Old Testament (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 4:19; Ezek. 20:10-26; Hos. 9:10). Stephen cites Amos 5:25-27 (LXX) as evidence of the accusation. The prophets’ prophecies also testify to the condition of Israel. In that passage, we see two references to these gods: the tabernacle of Molach and the star of the God Rompha. Molach is the English form of Molech.[16] Molech was the national god of Ammon (1 Kings 11:7) and is connected with child sacrifice. Molech may be identified with Muluk who was worshipped at Mari around 1800 B.C.[17] He was known as the Venus’ star.[18] Rampha is believed to be a reference to Repa, a name for Saturn, a god of Egypt.[19] Both gods mentioned are connected to heavenly bodies and their worship.

What is clear from this section on Moses is the idea of repeated rejection of God’s appointed leader and his message. Far from speaking against Moses, Stephen upheld the honor of the great prophet and leader.

The truth about the Tabernacle/Temple (7:44-50).

Stephen picks up on the idea of the tabernacle of Moloch contrasted to the tabernacle to transition into their view of the Temple. The religious leadership would not stand to hear anything about the destruction of the temple. In short, it had become an idol, thus the section on idolatry and the temple are closely connected. It truth the temple had become a granite idol in their midst. In this short section, he takes up the charge of blasphemy against the Temple. Stephen gives a brief history of the tabernacle and temple. “Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as He who spoke to Moses directed [him] to make it according to the pattern which he had seen. And having received in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David. [David] found favor in God’s sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for Him” (7:44-47).  Observe the following points:

· The tabernacle was made according to a divine pattern, and preserved and used “until the time of David.”

·The verses are designed to bring our focus on David, who found grace in God’s sight.[20]

· It was David’s desire to build the temple, not God’s, but God granted his request for the temple. However, David was not to build it, it was to be built by Solomon.[21]

God is not limited to the temple. “However, the Most High does not dwell in [houses] made by [human] hands; as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is the footstool of My feet; What kind of house will you build for Me?’ says the Lord, ‘Or what place is there for My repose? Was it not My hand which made all these things?’’ (7:48-50). The word “However” is a transition word. It shifts the focus to the God. The principle is clear—God does not dwell in houses made with human hands. He cannot be confined to a place. How can the creator be confined to the creation? Even Solomon the builder of the temple recognized this—1 Kings 8:27-30. However, the quote Stephen uses is from Isa.66:1. It stresses God’s sovereignty and imminence.  Longenecker points out,

Judaism never taught that God actually lived in the temple or was confined to its environs to spoke of his ‘Name’ and presence as being there. In practice, however, this concept was often denied. This would especially appear so to Stephen when further divine activity was refused out-of-hand by the people in their preference for God’s past revelation and redemption as symbolized in the existence of the temple.”[22]

Stephen is reminding them that the temple was not the primary site of God and His work. In this speech, he is emphasizing that many of the great revelations taken place outside the land and before the temple. God’s work and person are above it and not confined to it. Their history does not bear out their disproportionate sense of devotion or reverence for this location of granite stones. The words of Jesus about the temple being desolate can almost be heard in Stephens words (cf. Matt. 23:37-39). They worshiped the temple, not the God of the temple is the point that Stephen is making (cf. 7:43). They put the place before the person.



To be continued…



[1]  Keener, ACTS, 1373, slighted edited.
[2] Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 290.
[3] John Phillips, EXPLORING ACTS, [Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1986], 150
[4]  Aveilato means to lift up or to murder.
[5] Utley, ACTS, 103.
[6]  Larkin, ACTS, 112.
[7]  Bock, BECNT, ACTS, 291; Knowling, EBC: ACTS, 183.
[8]  Knowling, EBC: ACTS, 189.
[9]  Lenski, ACTS, 277.
[10]  Constable, ACTS, 108.
[11]  Ibid, 294.
[12]  Peterson, PNTC: ACTS,  257, fn 49; Lenski, ACTS, 284. Wallace remarks that these types of pronouns would normally be deleted in translation, but “at times, it has great rhetorical power and the English should reflect this,” BEYOND THE BASICS, 329-330. This is the case here.
[13]  Schrenk, “Qelw,” (Kittle) THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 3:52.
[14]  Lenski, ACTS, 288.
[15]  Bruce, NICNT: ACTS, 144.
[16]  Unger, “Moloch,” THE NEW UNGER’S BIBLE DICTIONARY, 488.
[17]  Thompson, J. A., “Molech,” THE ILLUSTRATED BIBLE DICTIONARY, 2:1018.
[18]  Larkin, ACTS 117.
[19]  Bruce, NICNT: 145, fn 70.
[20]  Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 301 points out that many see verses 44-45 as a transition into the time of David.
[21]  Bruce, NICNT: ACTS, `50-151 seems to take the view that the argument of Stephen is the temple was inferior tor the tabernacle; that the Temple’s permanence halted the advance of the divine plan for Israel. This view is not the point of Stephen’s speech.
[22]  Longenecker, EBC: ACTS, 9:346.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Review: Farewell Discourse






D.A. Carson, THE FAREWELL DISCOURSE AND FINAL PRAYER OF JESUS, An Evangelical Exposition of John 14-17; Grand Rapids MI, Baker Books, 2017, 236 pages.



I must concede that I was concerned about this book when asked to review it. After his find work on a Commentary on John, I was concerned that it was mainly a repeat of the commentary. That concern was quickly dispelled. While the commentary is academic and technical, this work is the none technical. It is a prime example of Exposition in comparison to the academic work. The author tells us that these were addresses given at several conferences.  They were given not so much to fulfill an academic need, but more for a general audience and to give a basic understanding.



He guides us through the discourse and prayer more as a skilled preacher that a highly required teacher. I found it heartwarming and helpful. It is a very good exposition of the passage. Understandable. Useful. Encouraging.



Dr. Carson does not sacrifice the difficult on the altar of practicality. His chapter of the humanity and deity of Christ is well explained. He warns us not to go outside what Scripture teaches, as well as, things so subline they are outside our theological formulation and our explanation is inadequate. 



If I have a criticism at all of this work it is twofold: (1) It center upon the farewell discourse but is light on the prayer of Jesus. It is somewhat unbalanced between the two. (2) His language is at times difficult for the average person. However, these do not take away from the overall worth of the book.



Anyone looking to study this section without wading through a heavier work, it is would be helpful. Would be ideal for help in a series of sermons or a Sunday teacher who is teaching the subject. It would be good and enjoyable for general reading. Worthy of any library.

Thanks to Baker Books are the cope in return for the review. The review is my opinion.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Stephen 002


Martyrdom of Stephen— Acts 6:8-8:3     By Pastor Jim Gray



Part 2. The Speech of Stephen 7:1-16



The speech of Stephen to the Sanhedrin is the longest speech in the book of Acts. This alone makes it significant. It is critical to the development of the story of Acts and is another appeal by the Holy Spirit to Israel concerning rejection of the Messianic kingdom. It is rooted in history and is a call to Israel not to repeat their history and enter into a new history. It is not so much a defense but an offensive indictment against the national leadership. Harrison points out that it is different from earlier speeches in Acts “in that Christ is not prominent, being introduced only at the end (v. 52) and then not by name.”[1] The main theme of Stephen is that of rejection by the nation of God’s prophets and message. The sermon deals with Israel, not the Gentiles. It denotes Israel’s continued rejection and opposition to God’s opportunity of grace. Lenski titles the speech: “God’s Grace is met by Israel’s Disobedience.[2] His speech demonstrates the reversal of Israel’s condition from what God intended. Keener diagrams the reversal this way:[3]

Abraham                                                                        Israel

God “resettled” Abraham (7:4)
God “resettled” Israel by exile (7:43)
Abraham’s descendants should worship God (7:7)
Israel worships idolatrously (7:42)
God grants the covenant of Circumcision (7:8)
The covenant-breaking accusers have uncircumcised hearts (7:51).



Message of Stephen—7:1-53

First, there is an invitation to Stephen by the question, “Are these things so?” (7:1). This question was posed to him by the High Priest concerning the charges against him. The High Priest was Caiaphas. It opened the door for Stephen to give his defense, which Stephen gladly step through to give the message of God. He responds with the following speech.
A Call to Listen—7:1-2a

Hear me, brethren and fathers!” (7:2a). The call to pay special attention to what he is going to say is an imperative. Who is to listen are the “brothers and fathers.” Both terms indicate Jewish listeners with a common heritage. Both knew and revered the acts of God through the nation in history. The speech is presented as a review of common history, but he introduces a personal element with phrases “in which you are now living” (7:4), and “you” (7:38). In using the pronoun, you, he is distinguishing the leaders from the believing remnant.

The Abrahamic Covenant—7:2b-8

Stephen begins with the beginning and the foundation of the nation—Abraham and the Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3). The Abrahamic covenant is the foundational promises; all other covenants are extensions of this covenant. He recounts the events.

He begins with God. “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. And said to him, ‘Leave your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you’” (7:2b-3). God spoke to Abraham in Mesopotamia, not Canaan. It is a contrast and challenge to traditional thinking of the time that revelation was confined to the land and the temple.[4] The land of Israel was a place of special pride to the leadership of the nation, believing the land was true orthodoxy was bound to being in the land. Stephen is making a sharp contrast, pointing out that orthodoxy is not limited to Israel, and can be found outside the land. The history of Israel were immigrants (Abraham, Joseph, and Moses). He understands Genesis 11:31-12:3 as indicating God already appeared to Abraham before Harran. The phrase “God of glory” indicates God’s glory appearing to Abraham, which is a divine visitation. It marks the grace of God being shown to this idol worshipper (cf. Deut. 26:5). God called Abraham while in Ur to go to a land he will be shown. In truth, the process of the beginning of the salvation of Israel began outside the land. This is an important point in the argument of Stephen.

There are a number of difficulties to the chronology within Stephens’s speech. The first one is given in Genesis 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with verse 2 that this command came to Abraham while in Mesopotamia, before living in Haran, whereas Genesis implies it came in Harran. A solution to this problem is best given by Peterson, who writes:

If Genesis 11:31-32 gives background information about Abram’s family and homeland and 12:1-3 sets out the divine word that prompted his journey, there is no conflict. Even though the LXX of Genesis 12:1 (‘and the Lord said’) implies a simple sequence from the events described in chapter 11, Stephen could have been influenced by a tradition of interpretation that allowed for a harmonization with Genesis 15:7; Joshua 14:2-3, and Nehemiah 9:7. His understanding is that God first spoke to Abraham in Ur and that God was thus the initiator and director of the whole process of salvation from the very beginning.[5]

Therefore, in obedience to God, Abraham “left the land of the Chaldeans and settle in Harran” (7:4). The land of the Chaldeans is synonymous with Mesopotamia. He left Ur and stayed in Harran until the death of his father. Then God sent him on to the land of promise. Stephen makes a direct connection with God’s revelation and promise to Abraham in Mesopotamia and his listeners concerning “this land where you are now living.” This reinforces the idea that revelation was not confined to the land and the temple. In +fact, the revelation came outside the land. By this emphasis, Stephen is in a sense paving the way for the gospel to go beyond the borders of Israel by Peter and later Paul. God is not confined by borders.

This verse presents another problem of chronology. The text of Stephen’s speech says Abraham left Haran after the death of father, whereas Genesis 11:26-12:4 indicates his death was after Abraham’s departure. Terah was said to be 205 when he died. If Abraham was born when he was 70, Terah would have been 145 when Abraham left Haran at the age of 75. Two possible solutions have been suggested: First, there has been the suggestion in that Stephen was following the Samaritan Pentateuch which gives Terah’s age as 145 when he died. This suggestion compromises a high view of Scripture, and is not very satisfying. The second and better suggestion is that Abraham may have not been the oldest son, although listed first in the Genesis text. Larkin holds this, saying:

If we take Abraham not as Terah’s eldest but as his youngest son, though he is mentioned first because of his prominence in the narrative, it is possible to propose that he was born sometime after Terah was seventy, even sixty years later—that is, when he was 130. This would account for the missing sixty years and harmonize the passages.[6]

“But He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and [yet], even when he had no child, He promised that He would give it to Him as a possession, and to his descendants after him” (7:5). This reinforces the idea that promise and faith go together; however, it is to be supplemented by obedience. When all seems impossible, God promised and Abraham believed, even though he had no inheritance, and no child. All He had was God’s promise in which he believed and acted upon it. Obedience was a reaction to the promise and faith. He had faith that God would grant the land and give Him a child (cf. Gen. 12:7; 17:8, 15:6). He knew God was faithful to His word. The reference to inheritance and not having a foot of ground refers to Abraham as a nomad, wondering up and down the land, but not having settled in the land. In Genesis 23 Abraham did obtain the cave of Machpelah, but did not gain full custody of the land of promise. It was only a burial place. Although realization never came to Abraham, the promise was for his future descendants; a guarantee of eschatological promise and possession of the land.

“But God spoke to this effect, that his ‘descendants would be aliens in a foreign land, and they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years. And whatever nation to which they will be in bondage I Myself will judge’ said God, ‘and after that they will come out and serve Me in this place’” (7:6-7). This is a prophetic quote of Genesis 15:13-14, and a fragment of Exodus 3:12. “Employment of a fragment from one text to interpret another was common Jewish practice,” notes Peterson.[7] Stephen clearly refers of the bondage that took place in Egypt and lasted 400 years. The time reference has caused some confusion among Bible students, since Exodus 12:40 has 430 years. Some hold that the 400 years is a rounded number.[8] Others take it more precise. Constable suggests in the following chart how the numbers for the Exodus should be taken:[9]

Israel in Egypt

1875                       1845                                        1446               1396
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           430 year sojourn in Egypt [Gal. 3:17]

                                                                          --------------------------------------------
                                                                                      400 years in Bondage [Gal. 15:13]

                                                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               "About" 450 years of Bondage, wondering, 
                                                                                    & conquest [Acts 13;19-20]
                                      |                          |                                          |                |
                                Jacob                    Israel                                Exodus        Conquest
                                moves to              enslaved
                                Egypt

The unfolding of God’s plan for Israel began way before the people went into Canaan. It began with Abraham who was given the sign of relationship in the covenant of circumcision. “And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so [Abraham] became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eight day; and Isaac [became the father of] Jacob, and Jacob [of] the twelve patriarchs” (7:8). Circumcision was the seal and sign of the covenant made with Abraham. It confirmed the promise of God. Necessitated in this promise was not just deliverance, but also judgment upon those who cursed Abraham and his seed (v.6-7). The sign was carried on with the patriarchs and the tribes showing that the promise stood.

God’s Faithfulness to His Covenant and People—7:9-16

The patriarchs became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. [Yet] God was with him, and rescued him from all his afflictions, and granted him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his household” (7:9-10). Again God was faithful in the life of His people outside the land and the temple even when they are not. This is clearly seen in the structure of verses 9-10:

Cause: Patriarchs became jealous of Joseph

                                                                Action: Sold Joseph into bondage

Cause: Yet God was with him

                                                                Action: Rescued him

Cause: Granted him grace (favor) and wisdom before Pharaoh

                                                                Action: appointed him governor

God revealed Himself in Mesopotamia and to Joseph in Egypt—outside the land—emphasizing the working of God is unrestricted as to location. Stephen takes up the history of the nation in Egypt. God worked on behalf of His people by grace. While the patriarchs sold Joseph and rejected him, God saved and empowered him. This is to support his point that the leadership is rejecting the chosen one, just as was Joseph.

God’s promise to judge the oppressors of His people originated in the Abrahamic Covenant. Could it be that Stephen is bringing this up because now the leadership of Israel was the oppressors? They have rejected God, crucified the Son, and now hardening their heart to the Spirit, in rejecting the risen Christ. As God judged His people’s oppression, as now they are the oppressors—prohibiting preaching, beating, and arresting—the true people of God (believers, i.e. the remnant), are they not now setting themselves up to be judged? Stephen is making the parallel between them and Egypt. They handed over Jesus, just as they had handed over Joseph in like fashion is the allusion: thereby, setting up the circumstances for judgment. This judgment was a physical famine in Canaan and Egypt in the days of the fathers (7:11). The word for food means folder for animals or food for man. Bock says it “may suggest that not even the worst kind of food was available.[10] The parallel is obvious; rejection brought spiritual famine that will lead to the physical destruction of the city and temple. God responds to rejection with retribution (judgment).

But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our fathers [there] the first time. On the second [visit] Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family was disclosed to Pharaoh. Then Joseph sent [word] and invited Jacob his father and all his relatives to come to him, seventy-five persons [in all]. And Jacob went down to Egypt and [there] He and our fathers died. [From there] they were removed to Shechem and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased from a sum on money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” (7:11-16). There are two primarily purposes here in Stephens speech:[11] First, it shows a remarkable similarity between Joseph and Jesus. Both were rejected and became Saviors of their people. Baker’s comments:

Joseph is nowhere called a type of Christ, but the events of his life so parallel those of Christ that it can hardly be doubted that Stephen considered him to be one. Joseph was ordained of God to be the leader of His people, but his brethren conspired against him and figuratively put him to death. In the meantime, Joseph rose up from the pit where his brothers had thrown him, became the savior of the known world and was exalted at the right hand of the King. At the second time, corresponding to the second coming of Christ, Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, forgave them, and established them in the most fruitful place in the land.[12]

Second, it shows the miraculously preserving and faithfulness of God to his people. Even in great famine, God provided a way for his people to survive as a people, even before they were a nation. Through Joseph the grace and kindness of God was demonstrated to His brethren.



to be continued…



[1]  Harrison, ACTS, 120
[2]  Lenski, ACTS,  260.
[3]  Keener, ACTS, 1357, lightly edited.
[4]  Peterson, PNTC: ACTS, 248; Keener, BIBLE BACKGROUND, 340.
[5]  Ibid, 271-272.
[6]  Larkin, TNTC: ACTS, 107.
[7]  Peterson, PNTC: ACTS, 250.
[8]  Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 284.
[9]  Constable, ACTS, 103.
[10]  Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 287.
[11]  Constable, ACTS, 104
[12]  Baker, ACTS, 41-42.

Friday, February 2, 2018

Stephen--Part 1


Martyrdom of Stephen— Acts 6:8-8:3
By Pastor Jim Gray




Part 1: The Maligning of Stephen—6:8-15.

One of the great turning points in Acts is the martyrdom of Stephen. Until this point the ministry of early Acts was to the Jews only, after Stephen it was to devout people. Now the vision of Peter came to deny any unclean thing. The ministry starts to go to devote people living in other lands (i.e., Cornelius). The emphasis is on the continued and progressive rejection by the leadership of the nation of Israel. The progression of hostility against the offer has intensified from a warning (4:21) to whipping (5:40) and now to murder (7:40). The maligning of Stephen can be divided into three areas:

The ministry of Stephen (6:8). 

The first thing we notice about Stephen is his empowerment. He is full of grace and power. Grace is often connected by the word gift, because a gift is the grace empowerment for a task (I Cor. 7:1; 12:4, 7, 9; Eph. 4:7; 1 Tim. 4:14). His empowerment is displayed in his “performing great wonders and signs among the people.” Luke uses this phrase to draw special attention to Stephen. So far, Jesus and the apostles were the only ones with this empowerment in Acts (cf. 2:22, 43, 5:12). Luke reminds us that these signs and wonders wereamong the people,” a reference to the nation Israel. Significant because God is still dealing exclusively with the nation of Israel (Acts 2:47; 3:9, 11-12. 23; 4:1-2, 8, 10, 17, 21; 5:12-13, 20, 25-26, 34).

A clash with Stephen—6:9-10.

The confrontation was with the Libertines. These were Jews who were at one-time slaves and had been given or earned their freedom. They had a connection with Rome since most slaves were Roman prisoners (or their descendants). Like most churches, synagogues tended to have a membership with people of similar backgrounds and connections. These are Hellenistic Jews, and membership included “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia” (6:9). These men “rose up and argued with Stephen” (6:9). The word argued can mean dispute or debate. However, their words could not hold up, just like they were unable to answer Jesus (cf. Luke 20:8, 26). “But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (6:10). The word cope means to oppose, stand up against, or resist. They were unable to stand up against the debating skill and wisdom of Stephen because of the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. 6:3, 5; 7:55). The gift of wisdom and the work of the Holy Spirit are key concepts of this motif. The promise of Jesus is taking place (Luke 1:14-15). Stephen was enabled to withstand and stand up to these men with the truth and wisdom of the Word.

The custody of Stephen—6:11-15.

Unsuccessful in their argument with Stephen, they now hatch a plot: “Then they secretly induced men to say, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God’” (6:11). It is the same techniques used against Jesus (cf. Matt 6:61) and will be used against Paul (cf. Acts. 21:8). This is the first of three charges against Stephen. He blasphemed the Law of Moses (Exodus 20:7). They broke the Law to accuse someone of breaking and blaspheming the Law. It is important to note the order given in the text—first Moses, then God. They were legalistic, but not enough to let it get in the way. Mosaic Law was the ultimate for them, yet they had no conscience of breaking it for they own self-interest and preservation.

CHARGES AGAINST STEPHEN

Acts 6:11
Blasphemed against the Law
Acts 6: 13
Blasphemed against the Temple
Acts 6:14
Supporting the destroying the Temple


Next, they got the people, elders, and scribes on their side. They did so by stirring the people up against Stephen. Then they arrested him and brought him before the Sanhedrin, as they did the Apostles (Acts 4:15; 5:27). The word dragged is synerpasan meaning to drag or seized against one's will or to force unwillingly.[1] The Sanhedrin, made up of elders and scribes, was the religious court of the Jews. It was known as the Sanhedrin. From 6 AD they held considerable power and influence in the area but it was dissolved during the Jewish revolt in 66 AD.[2]

In court, the false witnesses come forward. The charge is revealed—being against the Temple. This was an unjust examination. False witness was presented, which is prohibited by the Law (Ex. 20:16; Deut. 19:16-18). They do not give outright lies, but they distortions of the truth. The third charge is that he supports the destruction of the Temple. The Lord himself did say the Temple was to be destroyed (Matt. 24:1-2). This is guilt by association and a subtle charge of conspiracy.  However, Jesus did not say he would personal destroy the Temple, as the witnesses imply. To the Jewish mind, the Temple and the Law were related, to speak against the temple were to speak against the Law and God.[3] No doubt Stephen also taught the higher view of the Law as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). Notice the demeaning way they spoke of Stephen. They speak of him as “this man,” the very way they spoke of the Lord (cf. Luke 23:2, 4, 18). The tone is to belittle him in the eyes of the council. It was the Semitic way to show contempt. They attacked Stephen personally. When the doctrine cannot be disputed, then discredit the preacher. 

The purpose of Luke in Acts 6 is three-fold: (1) To introduce us to Stephen and his character. (2) To establish the continued hostility of Israel’s leadership. (3) To set up Stephens’s speech recorded in chapter 7. Without the information of chapter 6, the speech of Stephen would not have its proper context.

…to be continued



[1]  Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 272.
[2]  Charles Utley, ACTS 66 (electron media).
[3]  Bock, BECNT: ACTS, 272.