Acts 6: 8 – 8:1
A story within a story
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council. 13 They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” 15 And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.
7 Then the high priest said, “Are these things so?” 2 And he said, “Brethren and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.’ 4 Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, He moved him to this land in which you now dwell. 5 And God gave him no inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot on. But even when Abraham had no child, He promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his descendants after him. 6 But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years. 7 ‘And the nation to whom they will be in bondage I will judge,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and serve Me in this place.’ 8 Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs. 9 “And the patriarchs, becoming envious, sold Joseph into Egypt. But God was with him 10 and delivered him out of all his troubles, and gave him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. 11 Now a famine and great trouble came over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and our fathers found no sustenance. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. 13 And the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to the Pharaoh. 14 Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people. 15 So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers. 16 And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. 17 “But when the time of the promise drew near which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt 18 till another king arose who did not know Joseph. 19 This man dealt treacherously with our people, and oppressed our forefathers, making them expose their babies, so that they might not live. 20 At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in his father’s house for three months. 21 But when he was set out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. 22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds. 23 “Now when he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. 24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, and struck down the Egyptian. 25 For he supposed that his brethren would have understood that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not understand. 26 And the next day he appeared to two of them as they were fighting, and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another?’ 27 But he who did his neighbor wrong pushed him away, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Do you want to kill me as you did the Egyptian yesterday?’ 29 Then, at this saying, Moses fled and became a dweller in the land of Midian, where he had two sons. 30 “And when forty years had passed, an Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. 31 When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he drew near to observe, the voice of the Lord came to him, 32 saying, ‘I am the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and dared not look. 33 ‘Then the LORD said to him, “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt; I have heard their groaning and have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.”’ 35 “This Moses whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 He brought them out, after he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. 37 “This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’ 38 “This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, 39 whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, 40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ 41 And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. 42 Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: ‘Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 43 You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, Images which you made to worship; And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’ 44 “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen, 45 which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, 46 who found favor before God and asked to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built Him a house. 48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 49 ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, or what is the place of My rest? 50 Has My hand not made all these things?’ 51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.” 54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
8 And Saul was consenting to his death.’
It is one of the exciting things about serving God that we never know what He is going to do next. In 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 realize that shortly he would be promoted to glory by way of martyrdom.
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 Savior of men, Who was to take central stage. And the thoughts of men should therefore be more centered 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 centered on Christ. These are the ideas that will shortly come to the fore in his final defense. Men, he declares, should not be looking to the land, or to the Temple, they should be looking to God’s great Deliverer.
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 focused 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 Sadducee opposition would now be bolstered by the Pharisees.
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Back in chapter 4 verse 33 our Precious Holy Spirit list that the Apostles were said to speak with great grace and power. Please note that now Stephen also possesses 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 anointing of the Holy Spirit. 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.
9 Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen.
So Stephen boldly went into the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem and proclaimed Christ. And the description suggests that there he disputed with many who disagreed with him. We do not know whether this was one synagogue where all these types met or a number of synagogues such as a synagogue of the Freedmen (Libertines), a synagogue for Cyrenians, a synagogue for Alexandrians (Egyptians), and one for Cilicians and Asians. But the participants were all firm in their beliefs, and we can almost certainly presume that some Pharisees were involved, for as knowledgeable in the Law and in the Scriptures they would unquestionably involve themselves in such a situation.
The Libertines were possibly composed of freedmen who having been released from slavery tended to group together and make common cause. They may well have formed a separate synagogue, for a synagogue could be set up by ten or more adult males. The Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from North Africa. The Cilicians and Asians were from the north. The Cilicians may well have included Saul (Paul) among their number.
10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.
Stephen was clearly a capable debater and on top of that was also enabled in wisdom by the Holy Spirit. Thus as his opponents discussed with him they found that their arguments were being defeated. They became aware that all too often Stephen was winning the argument. They began to find the things that they saw as most precious marginalized. We may surmise that they argued about the things that Stephen would lay down in his speech, that Christ was the coming Prophet and Righteous one, that men should look more to Him than to the Temple, and that presence in the land mattered little one way or the other. What mattered was to follow Christ and obey Him.
The account concentrates on the response of those who took this badly. To be in the ‘holy land’ and in the ‘holy Temple’ meant a huge amount to them. They hoped that it might help to get them obtain eternal life. And now they felt as though their foundations were being taken away. But there may well have been some who found themselves convinced, and became Christians.
11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.”
But those who took their defeat hard and were not willing to yield did what many do who lose an argument, they stirred up trouble for Stephen. They were genuinely angry and their policy was, if you cannot beat him have him beaten. Thus they rose up evil men to spread false rumors. These went about declaring that they had heard Stephen speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Men of strong belief are prone to see things that they do not agree with as blasphemous, especially if it shows up what they do believe in. It is a tendency when someone has a strong belief in something.
12 And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council.
They were in fact so effective in what they said that ‘the people’ became stirred up. There appears to have been a general furor, for it resulted in the members of the Sanhedrin having him arrested and brought before the council. It would seem from the fact that he alone was affected by this that the council was in general following its own decision to leave the Apostles to prove themselves. But they clearly saw this outspoken Hellenistic Jewish Christian as different, especially in view of the severe charges being set against him.
It was, of course, the Sanhedrin’s duty to examine any serious charge of blasphemy. If they thought that such a thing had happened they were duty bound to examine it. And we note here that, because it was the result of trouble in the synagogues rather than in the temple, the Pharisees (‘the scribes’) was directly involved. Now that it was in the synagogues and not the Temple that this was happening it had begun to affect them personally. That is why later Saul, a disciple of Gamaliel, will be involved. It is now for the first time since the crucifixion the Pharisees who are influential in opposing the infant church.
13 They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”
They set up as witnesses the ones who had been spreading false rumors and were demanding that something be done. It does not necessarily mean that the council was involved in actually them fabricating evidence. And even then we must recognize that there was probably some partial truth in what the false witnesses had to say, as Stephen’s own words make clear. Half truths are usually more effective than total lies which can easily be disproved. The accusations were close enough to what Stephen had said to be uncomfortable.
These false witnesses claimed that he had spoken against ‘this holy place’ (the Temple) and against ‘the Law’. This would be seen as an attack on both the things that were important to the chief priests (the Temple) and to the Pharisees (the Law). They then amplified this by pointing out that what he had actually said was that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the Temple and would change the customs which Moses had delivered to them.
The probability is that they were exaggerating what he had said rather than totally making it all up. We can compare, with regard to their statement about the Temple, how false witnesses at The Lord Jesus trial had claimed, “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple which is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark 14.58). That too we know was probably a distortion of a genuine saying of our Lord Jesus ( John 2.19).
15 And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.
But when Stephen came before them they were astonished, for when they gazed at his face it looked like the face of an angel. This probably means that he was so filled with the sense of the presence of God that his face in some way shone. This need not be seen as a miracle, but it should certainly have reminded them of how when Moses came to the people with a message from God his face too had shone (Exodus 34.29-35). They should therefore have realized that here was a man who had come to them with a message from God, and have been more open. He bore the truth of his own testimony on his face.
I want you to note how this phenomenon is brought into account later. Here they saw his face as though it was the face of an angel. In 7.53 the sentence against the Sanhedrin is that ‘they received the Law as it was ordained by angels and kept them not.’ Luke is bringing out how God was here giving the Sanhedrin a huge opportunity, speaking through His ‘angel’ (messenger), as He had previously to Israel when He gave them the Law. The point is that in the end they responded to neither. Here was God’s angel bringing a greater covenant, but they missed their opportunity once again.
The words of Stephen we will look at are a powerful defense against the charges made against him. That is unquestionable. But they are not a defense made by his proving that he did not say the words that he was accuse of. Indeed such a defense might have been impossible. He may well have had no witnesses to prove that he did not say what he was accused of. Thus he had to go about establishing his defense by demonstrating his own credentials and beliefs, and showing them to be Scriptural, and by demonstrating that his opponents could in fact be classed as much more guilty of ‘blasphemy’ than he. But being the man he was he was also determined to seek to bring those who were listening to him to Christ. He saw these men as open to reason. So he also included within his defense powerful arguments which would appeal to any honest listeners and make them consider their own position. Had he not done so he might well not have been martyred?
At first sight his speech appears simply to be a review of the early history of Israel, but we should note that the use of this kind of approach was the normal style of the day. Directness in speech was not always seen as polite or desirable such as Abraham’s negotiation for the land in which to bury Sarah - Genesis 23. And we must remember that he was speaking to those who were used to such methods of speaking, and were experienced at selecting out from such a retelling of history the intended themes and inferences. For once his speech is analyzed more carefully those themes can be clearly observed.
It is soon apparent that one primary purpose and theme was to bring out from ‘Moses’ Law’ a description of how God had constantly sought to deliver His people, and how He had equally constantly been thwarted, and how those deliverers whom God had sent for this purpose all pointed forward to the Great Deliverer, the Righteous One (verse 52) Who has now been among them. This comes out in his selection of notables, Abraham, Joseph and Moses, who were all involved in deliverance. By this he establishes his reverence for the Law, while at the same time getting over a powerful message which is to him pointing to the greatest Deliverer and Savior of all, Jesus Christ.
7 Then the high priest said, “Are these things so?”
We are left to recognize that the High Priest, the chairman of the tribunal, has had the charges laid out before the court. He then turns to Stephen and asks severely, ‘Is this true? Are these things so?’. It was a fair question.
2 And he said, “Brethren and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.’
Stephen begins his reply in a conciliating way, ‘brethren and fathers’. He is affirming his oneness with them as a Jew, and giving respect to those in authority. Then he asks them to ‘listen’, and consider his defense.
We are probably intended to see the reference to ‘Mesopotamia’ (the land between the Rivers), spoken of in verse 4 as ‘the land of the Chaldeans’, as significant. ‘The Chaldeans’ were by this time remembered for their magic and sorcery and mysterious religious practices, and their land had ever been seen as ominously important because it was there that the first godless empire was founded (Genesis 10.9-12) and it was there that they offended God with the tower which was the result of their God-provoking aspirations (Genesis 11.1-9). It was the land of rebellion and of the occult (Isaiah 47.12-13). Isaiah constantly revealed Babylon as the great blasphemer and anti-God that had had to be destroyed (Isaiah 13.19-20). It was from such a background, says Stephen that God called out Abraham in His first act of deliverance for His people.
Please notice the statement that ‘He appeared to Abraham.’ This was the first of a number of such Theophanous which Abraham would be privileged to enjoy. It was an act of sovereign graciousness, and Stephen is concerned that his hearers remember that when God had appeared to Abraham it was while he was at Babylon, the very centre of all opposition to God. Haran was a neighboring country to Canaan, but it was Mesopotamia that had always been the grim far off enemy.
Stephen certainly wants us to see that this first break with Babylon came in obedience to God’s command and purpose, in readiness for his later reference to Israel’s return ‘beyond Babylon’ in unbelief (verse 43) which was to be seen as the result of disobedience and rejection of His purpose.
4 Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, He moved him to this land in which you now dwell.
So Abraham had left behind him the land of the Chaldeans at God’s command and had dwelt in Haran. And from there he had later, when his father was dead, removed into Canaan. Note the two stages in his journey, only the second of which brought him to Canaan.
5 And God gave him no inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot on. But even when Abraham had no child, He promised to give it to him for a possession and to his descendants after him.
But even though Abraham had at last made Canaan his ‘home’ he had had no permanent possession in it. God had given him no inheritance there, not so much as one place to set his foot on (and say, ‘this is mine’). He walked alone with God, freed now from the influence of Babylon, the centre of idolatry and the occult, and freed from Haran where the moon god was worshipped, and tied to no land. Instead he was tied to God.
What, however, God did do was give the promise that one day it would belong to Abraham’s seed. It was a future hope, not a present possession. Note here how his seed possessing it is equated with him possessing it. He will possess it in his seed. And this promise was made even before Abraham had children. So the promise included the thought that he would have children. God was thus not calling Abraham to possess the land. He was calling him to live in faith and trust. This is also made clear in Genesis 15.6, ‘and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness’.
6 But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years.
Nor did God promise immediate possession of the land for his seed. They also would be away from the land for four hundred years (Genesis 15.13). Thus it was clearly not their possession of the land that mattered, but that they were His people, with a future hope. They would indeed live in a strange land. And there they would in time be in bondage, and would be ill-treated (as Stephen and his hearers were being in Palestine at that time under Roman rule).
7 ‘And the nation to whom they will be in bondage I will judge,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and serve Me in this place.’
And eventually God would act. God would judge those who held them in bondage, after which, God said, “They will come out and serve Me ‘in this place’.” In Exodus 3.12 ‘in this place’ signified the mountain of God, and as Stephen has put the words on God’s lips it is probable that he intends the original context to stand. This is thus the first instance where he stresses that ordained worship of God is to be away from the land in a place chosen by God (note how he later stresses ‘the wilderness Tabernacle’).
The assumption here is that God will eventually raise up a ‘judge’ (‘I will judge’) and a deliverer, and it is thus no accident that when Moses appears to present himself to the people he does so as ruler and ‘judge’. This all makes clear that the land was to be a reward in the future, while future worship was not tied to the land. The land was thus not an essential foundation of their religious life. It was to be seen as the blessing to come.
8 Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs.
As a seal on these promises God gave him the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17), which included his descendants (he ‘circumcised’ Isaac). Thus came first Isaac, then Jacob and then the twelve Patriarchs, all included within the covenant and the promises. Circumcision was in order to bind them into the covenant and was thus to be seen as affecting their ‘hearts.
9 “And the patriarchs, becoming envious, sold Joseph into Egypt. But God was with him
Now came the first sign of unbelief and disquiet that would become a hallmark of the people of Israel. The patriarchs, (the rulers of their tribes), became jealous of their brother and moved against him. The revelation that he was to be the one to whom they should look as their deliverer, conveyed through his dreams (they would all bow down to him), filled them with jealous rage, and they sold him off to Egypt. They wanted no prophet or ruler over them. It was the beginning of a pattern that would continue on through the ages. God’s deliverers and prophets would regularly become the victims of the jealousies of the rulers of Israel.
We must see it as very probable that the most discerning of his audience were already beginning to get his drift. They picked up on what Stephen highlighted - ‘And God was with him.’ The one whom the people rejected turned out to be the one who was the favored of God.
They knew that Stephen was one of this new way and that this new way sought to put the blame for the death of Jesus on the leaders of the people. Thus they would make the connection between the jealousy of the patriarchs and the plot against Joseph, and their own attitude towards Jesus as seen by His followers.
10 and delivered him out of all his troubles, and gave him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.
Thus God delivered him from his afflictions, and exalted him, and enthroned him (the parallel could hardly be missed with the One Who had been crucified and was declared by His followers to have been enthroned, although at this stage Stephen is not trying to make it too blatant). He was delivered in such a way that the great Pharaoh himself looked on him with favor and saw him as wise. And he made him Lord over Egypt and his entire house. The one rejected by Israel’s leaders was uplifted and exalted, and became the favored of the unorthodox. (This was getting right to the heart of the charge against Stephen).
11 Now a famine and great trouble came over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and our fathers found no sustenance. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first.
Meanwhile the whole world was suffering from famine so that ‘our fathers’ (note the more personal application, referring it to the ones from whom ‘we’ come and whom ‘we’ are like) found no sustenance. And the result was that hearing of grain in Egypt Jacob sent forth ‘our fathers’ the first time. The relation of famine to spiritual dearth occurs often in the Old Testament and to those who were used to dealing in allegories the point would hardly be missed. Those who appeared to be God’s faithful ones, who were suffering spiritual famine because they had refused to hear God’s prophet, would have to look to ‘outside’ sources for their sustenance. Their own were insufficient. God neither heard in their land, nor responded to their pleas at their altar.
But when they went forth the first time they did not recognize their deliverer for who he was. This is implied by the silence. They sought sustenance but did not recognize the source. Yet the source should have been known to them. It was in their blindness that they did not know him. Yet from him alone was there life.
13 And the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to the Pharaoh.
But their fathers had not remained in blindness. At the second opportunity, (the opportunity that the Sanhedrin was now experiencing), the tribal leaders had had their eyes opened. Joseph was made known to his brothers. And Joseph’s race (the source from which he came) was made openly known to Pharaoh, while Israel’s eyes were opened to their deliverer and became familiar with, and reconciled with, the ‘foreign’ influences which they had previously not recognized. The call here was for the Sanhedrin to recognize their prospective Savior, and open them to His seemingly ‘foreign’ teaching.
14 Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people.
The result was that those selected of the people of Jacob responded to the call of their Deliverer, and all was well. And the number of them was threescore (three times twice ten - completeness intensified) and fifteen (three times five, complete covenant connection). These were God’s elect.
15 So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers. 16 And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.
So Joseph in Egypt was the source of their deliverance. And the final result of their deliverance was that they were buried in the land that God had promised them, in the tomb of their tribe. To those who had become obedient God fulfilled His promise. Stephen wanted to emphasize as concisely as possible that the patriarchs had been finally buried in the land promised to Abraham. He simply selected a well known example in order to bring out the point.
Some of the religious men would know the connection with Shechem, which in Stephen’s time was connected with the Samaritans, as another indication of the ‘foreign’ element so prominent in Stephen’s speech, with the thought that even Jacob’s sons were buried in a place despised by the present generation rather than in what they would see as the land proper.
17 “But when the time of the promise drew near which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt 18 till another king arose who did not know Joseph.
As a result of God’s deliverance through Joseph, Israel prospered. ‘The people grew and multiplied’, which was always an indication of God’s blessing. But as the time for the fulfilling of God’s promise of deliverance from Egypt approached, affliction came on the people. A king arose who did not know Joseph (Exodus 1.8). God’s deliverer was now forgotten and therefore it would be necessary to await another deliverer. And before the coming of the deliverer must come the bondage. (Thus the fact that Israel was at present in bondage should have meant that they were looking for the deliverer).
There was also here a hint to the leaders that the new people of Christ were growing and multiplying outside of and apart from the influence of the Jewish leaders, but facing a threat from those who did not know their Deliverer?
19 This man dealt treacherously with our people, and oppressed our forefathers, making them expose their babies, so that they might not live.
The result was that affliction arose and attempts were made to slay all male babies at birth. There may be here a reminder of what had happened to the children of Bethlehem when Jesus was born at the hands of the crafty King Herod (Matthew 2.16), and also of the Roman occupation which the Jews certainly saw as an affliction (‘ill-treated our fathers’).
20 At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in his father’s house for three months.
At Israel’s worst time Moses was born, and he was ‘fair to God’. We can compare how after He was born God was with Jesus as he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2.40). Both were proper children in their own way.
21 But when he was set out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. 22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.
But the future deliverer was not brought up by his own people under the instruction of his own rulers; he was brought up under ‘foreign’ instruction. He was brought up by Pharaoh’s daughter who cared for him as her own son. And there he learned foreign wisdom, and was mighty in word and works (Luke 24.19). We have continually the stress that God’s deliverers were not brought up in the equivalent of mainstream Judaism. In the same way, he wants them to realize, the Prophet Who had come, who was like Moses (verse 37), was the man of Galilee, not the man of Jerusalem.
23 “Now when he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. 24 And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, and struck down the Egyptian. 25 For he supposed that his brethren would have understood that God would deliver them by his hand, but they did not understand.
Once he had reached full age Moses had gone to visit his people, and seeing them suffer wrong, had revealed himself as the deliverer sent by God. He had expected them to recognize him for what he was. The Lord Jesus also on reaching maturity had ‘visited his brethren’ and sought to deliver them from ‘oppression’, from evil spirits and diseases, hoping that they would understand.
26 And the next day he appeared to two of them as they were fighting, and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another?’ 27 But he who did his neighbor wrong pushed him away, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Do you want to kill me as you did the Egyptian yesterday?’
Moses came bringing peace. But instead of recognizing him as the God-sent ruler and judge, and as the one who had come to make peace among them, they had rejected him. (Just as his hearers in court had failed to recognize their God-sent Savior in Jesus, even though He too had come preaching peace).
29 Then, at this saying, Moses fled and became a dweller in the land of Midian, where he had two sons.
The result was that the deliverer had fled and became a sojourner in Midian. Having rejected their deliverer they had lost him. Note that the place to which he fled was the place where the mountain of God was, ‘in this place’ (verse 7). (In the same way his hearers should recognize that they too had lost sight of their prospective Savior (John 8.21-22) and that He too had gone to The Holy Mountain where God was). And there in the wilderness Moses begat two sons. Even though he had been rejected he was not totally without children (as Jesus already had children in those who had believed - John 13.33).
30 “And when forty years had passed, an Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. 31 When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he drew near to observe, the voice of the Lord came to him, 32 saying, ‘I am the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and dared not look.
And God had appeared in fire, and had spoken to him declaring that He was the God of his fathers, the God Who had made His promises to Abraham (verse 5). His promises of a deliverer were now about to be fulfilled (verse 7). And Moses had wondered at the sight and had trembled, not daring to look on God. (In the same way God had revealed Himself in fire at Pentecost. The God of Fire was again offering deliverance if only they would respond. Perhaps Stephen also saw a connection between the forty years of Moses and the forty days of Jesus resurrection appearances - 1.3).
33 ‘Then the LORD said to him, “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt; I have heard their groaning and have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.”’
God had declared that the time for deliverance had come, the time when He would save His people from affliction. Moses was to acknowledge His holiness and recognize that he was in the presence of God, and then God would send him from His presence to deliver His people. (In the same way God’s present Deliverer was in the presence of God and waited to deliver all who would call on Him - 2.36, 39).
35 “This Moses whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush.
So the one whom Israel had first rejected, contemptuously refusing his ruler ship, God had now sent as Ruler and Savior from the very hand of the One Who had appeared in the fire in the bush. (Stephen’s challenge to his hearers here is that they too must recognize the coming of a Deliverer and acknowledge Jesus as both Lord and Christ. For His Lordship too had been revealed in fire, through the fire at Pentecost).
36 He brought them out, after he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
And this Moses had revealed himself as ruler and deliverer in performing many signs and wonders both before and after the great deliverance. (The hint was that the One Who had come among them with signs and wonders, both before and after His death, wonders which even they had had to acknowledge, was the greater Moses. It was something that they could hardly fail to recognize).
37 “This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’
Stephen then makes clear the parallel between Moses and Jesus by citing Deuteronomy 18.15. All that he has been saying has had in mind not only Moses, but the coming Prophet like Moses. Many of them believed in the coming Prophet (John 1.21), and were even looking for his coming. Let them therefore draw the parallels. Furthermore this could be seen as an indication that when such a Prophet who was ‘like Moses’ came, different aspects of the Law would be expanded as He took up the Law of Moses and applied it.
38 “This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, 39 whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt,
‘This is he --’. That is, Moses. He was with them and with God (the angel) in the wilderness where he received the ‘living oracles’ from God at Mount Sinai, the mount of true revelation. There could be no higher testimonial to Moses than that. And they were intended to be for the blessing of Israel. But the people had thrust Moses away and had not been obedient to the Angel and His message, just as Jesus had come bringing living oracles and they had refused to listen to Him.
40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’
Rather than responding to the living oracles they chose that Aaron should make them dead replacement gods, for they did not know where Moses had gone. Even at the very mountain of God they had turned to idolatry and the worship of a molten image, and had spurned their deliverer. They had refused the words of Moses and thrust him away.
Let the court consider therefore how these very people of God from whom they were descended had been blasphemers against God, and had spurned the Law of Moses. ‘Not knowing what had become of him’ was similar to what Jesus had said people would say once He had been crucified (John 7.34-36).
41 And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
The people had quite blatantly made a calf and sacrificed to their idol, and rejoiced in what their own hands had made. There is a parallel between this last statement and the statement concerning the Temple as ‘made with hands’ (7.48). They were always making things by which to worship God which were insufficient for the purpose, and that was true even of their Temple, because it was ‘made with hands’.
42 Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: ‘Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 43 You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, Images which you made to worship; And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’
Thus God had turned from them and given them up to serve the host of heaven. Moses himself had warned them against serving the host of heaven (Deuteronomy 4.19; 17.3) but in Kings it became a regular feature of Israelite worship (2 Kings 17.6). The host of heaven was a poor and blasphemous substitute for the God of Heaven. So once they were in the land God turned away from His people, and handed them over to other gods. (So much for the blessing of the land).
The citation is taken from Amos 5.25-27. The thought is either that they had professed to worship God for forty years in the wilderness and then had turned, once they were in the land, to the worship of Moloch and Rephan (an Assyrian god). That was how much good the land had done them! Or that the wilderness was not such a time of pure worship as present Judaism tried to make out (it was a constant theme of 1st century AD Judaism that the period in the wilderness had been the time of Israel’s purity). For the molten calf demonstrated that it was not a period of pure worship for forty years. Judaism may seek to idealize the forty years in the wilderness, but Stephen is pointing out that it was simply not a true description of that time.
They had turned from the Tabernacle of God to the tabernacle of Moloch. Moloch was the local god of the Ammonites, but was regularly worshipped in Canaan and warned against by Moses (Leviticus 18.21; 20.2-5). He was a god who required child sacrifice, and was thus the most to be despised. And the star out of Jacob, God’s promised deliverer (Numbers 24.17) had been replaced by the star of Rephan, the god of Assyria. These were the figures that Israel had made in order to worship them. What was more blasphemous than that? Who was it now who had ‘changed the Law of Moses’ and exchanged it for idolatry?
Please note the statement ‘And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’ Stephen changes ‘Damascus’ as found in Amos to ‘Babylon’ in order to bring home the lesson that they had returned right back to what Abraham had escaped from (7.2, 4). He saw such an alteration as justified because Babylon epitomized all such idolatrous cities (just as when we are preaching we may turn ‘woe to you Chorazin’ to ‘woe to you New York’). Israel had turned full circle and had been shown no longer to be God’s people.
44 “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen,
Their fathers had ‘the Tabernacle of the Testimony in the wilderness’, which was made according to God’s pattern, just as the One Who spoke to Moses had appointed him. So the Tabernacle, which contained the covenant came from the wilderness, from the very mountain of God . It was portable, as befitted a universal God, and was according to God’s pattern and received in the wilderness at the mountain of God under God’s instructions. All was therefore of God, and nothing was of the land.
45 which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David,
It was then brought into the land by another Jesus (Greek), by Joshua (Hebrew), when they took over ‘the possession of the nations’ at the time when God thrust them out before them. So God’s original ‘dwelling place’ was God-given and came from outside the land, brought into it when God acted in order to give them the land as their possession, a land which had belonged to the nations. It was thus the God of the Tabernacle Who had given them the land. This situation continued until the days of David. They worshipped at the God-given, God designed, portable, wilderness Tabernacle received at the mountain of God outside the land.
The contrast with the Temple is quite clear and quite startling. It was not of the land, it was God-designed and the God Who was connected with it was powerfully effective. Being a tent, which could be used when necessary but was not a permanent home, it was suitable as an earthly place where the transcendent God could come to meet His people without being tied down. And it entered into the land with Him when God took possession of it. Thus possession of the land was linked with the Tabernacle, not the Temple. There were in fact many ordinary Jews who saw the Tabernacle as the ideal place of worship, including the Covenanters at Qumran. But what they failed to do, unlike Stephen, was to see beyond the Tabernacle to the heavenly Tabernacle (Hebrews 8.2). They were going backwards instead of forwards.
46 who found favor before God and asked to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob.
And David himself found favor in God’s sight, and wanted to find some kind of habitation (skene - tent) for the house (or ‘God’) of Jacob. However, as all knew, God had forbidden him to erect a permanent house, which was surely significant (2 Samuel 7.5-7). Stephen is deliberately bringing out that David’s idea was of a habitation of God which was satisfactory to God, and could therefore be compared with the Tabernacle, in contrast with the Temple.
47 But Solomon built Him a house.
But it was Solomon who went about it. And what did he do? He built Him a house. And yet even Solomon had recognized that God did not dwell in a House made with hands, because He is Lord over all (1 Kings 8.27). How foolish then to build such a house which could only give his people the wrong idea about God.
Solomon’s Temple (like Herod’s Temple) was a perfect example of what Stephen was drawing attention to. It was grandiose, it was designed by a foreigner, it was on a distorted pattern, and it was permanently fixed in one place, totally the opposite of the Tabernacle.
48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
Thus the Temple was an error, a concession allowed by God but not really adequate (2 Samuel 7.6-7). The Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands, as the prophets have made clear. They had thrust aside God’s God-given provision and had made their own kind of provision. The title ‘Most High’ was regularly used in relation to the nations. Thus Stephen is emphasizing here that God is the God of all men, not to be limited to Jerusalem. And secondly the title also stresses why He cannot be confined to a permanent house built in Jerusalem, He is ‘most High’. (Isaiah’s vision had resolved it by raising it above all mountains. That carried the similar intention of lifting it out of its earthiness).
The phrase ‘made with hands’ is intentionally derogatory. The Tabernacle had been made by sanctified and willing hands empowered by the Spirit according to God’s pattern (Exodus 30.30-35). But the Temple was very much a building of earth, with its foreign designer, enforced labor and earthly ostentation. ‘Made with hands’ is used in 17.14 where it describes Temples not fit for God’s habitation and in 19.26 where Paul denigrates ‘gods’ that are ‘made with hands’. See also Hebrews 9.11, 24. What is made with hands is the very opposite of what God, ‘the Most High’, is.
49 ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, or what is the place of My rest? 50 Has My hand not made all these things?’
And this is also what the prophet Isaiah 66.1-2 had declared. God Is the Creator of heaven and earth, who metaphorically sits in the heavens resting His feet on the earth, and can certainly not be restricted to an earthly building -For He has made all things. Nothing on earth can therefore be made which is suitable for Him, or become a place for Him to stay.
He could not more clearly have put the Temple in its proper place. And those who were clear-headed and thoughtful would at another time and in another place, have agreed with him, if not with the implication that he was making. For all knew that God was above all things and could not be restricted to a Temple, even the Temple in Jerusalem. It was His Name that dwelt there. But the Temple had become a fetish and a superstition. It had become the heart of their religion, taking a place in their hearts which was beyond reason. And to have it so degraded tore at their hearts, even if it did justify what Stephen might previously have said about it.
Up to this point Stephen has on the whole aligned him with the things that he has portrayed but now suddenly he changes tone in order to apply his message. From this point on he disassociates himself from his listeners, and speaks firmly of ‘You’. What he now has to say he himself cannot be accused of for he has responded to the Savior. Perhaps the change came because he sensed a changed atmosphere in the Tribunal and saw from their behavior that they were about to silence him. Perhaps what he had described so moved his godly heart that he was horrified at the thought of what these men were guilty of. Perhaps he was simply firmly applying what he had said in order to achieve conviction of sin. Whichever way it was, his words now became pointed, personal and unavoidable.
51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.
Their attitude towards the Temple, exalting what God had not exalted, and turning from what God had provided, epitomized their whole attitude towards all that was of God. They altered what God had given. They altered His house, they changed His word, and they resisted the Holy Spirit in every way, just as their fathers had before them. They were stiff necked and their hearts were wrong (Deuteronomy 10.16) and their ears were deaf (Jeremiah 6.10). And even now they were refusing to hear the Holy Spirit as He made His new approach to men.
The rebuke might seem extreme but these were precisely the words in which the Law had addressed the people (he could not be accused of speaking against the Law here). ‘Stiff necked’ was a favorite description by God when speaking in the Law concerning the people. It was thus an ‘in’ word expressing their unwillingness to listen and bend their necks to it. And the idea of being uncircumcised in heart was also Mosaic, indicating hardened and blinded hearts. In fact it was language they themselves would quite willingly have used of the people whom they taught for that reason. But it was not something they were likely to accept from Stephen. It was one thing for them to pray humbly before God of themselves in this way, and address the people in this way, but it was quite another to be told it by this Hellenistic Jewish Christian.
52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,
Now Stephen gets to the heart of the matter. Their fathers had revealed what was in their uncircumcised hearts by persecuting the prophets. Indeed, they had bared their hearts by even killing some who had proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Righteous One (Isaiah who according to their tradition was sawn in half in the reign of Mansseh, was probably especially in mind). They had revealed that they had not wanted the Righteous One to come if He was as the prophets had said. And now they themselves had gone even further and had betrayed and murdered the Righteous One Himself.
53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.”
But, he is saying, it is not really surprising that they had rejected the Righteous One, for these are the ones who had been privileged to receive the Law as ordained by angels, and still had not kept it. The two ideas went together. The one was preparing for the other, and their failure to do the one resulted in the other.
Thus from this all should know who really sought to change the Law of Moses. In actual fact the Pharisees to a man would have admitted to each other that they did not keep the Law fully. It was not the fact of it that they would resent. It was the implication that they were not Law-keepers. Why they struggled to keep it with might and main. But as Jesus had pointed out, that was not God’s Law; it was the Law as determined by man, the Law ‘made by hands’.
The idea that the Law was ordained by and mediated by angels was orthodox Jewish belief, based on their view that the transcendent God could not deal with man directly. This was a basic contradiction to how they actually, (as opposed to theologically), viewed the Temple. Actually they saw the Temple and its ordinances as binding God by their rituals, even though theoretically they did see Him as transcendent.
Learned judges do not like those who are on trial trying to convict them of being criminals, and as they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong the result was inevitable. The uneasy feeling that had grown as Stephen’s defense had gone on, had now become outright anger.
54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.
The verbs here are very powerful. ‘Cut to the heart’ indicates that his words had gone home, for good or bad. They were moved to the very depths of their beings. Every nerve was stretched. And it was revealed by their outward expression and behavior, for the gnashing of their teeth is especially descriptive.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
For to Stephen a wonderful thing happened. Being full of the Holy Spirit (the continuous experience of his life) he looked up towards heaven and saw the glory of God, and our Precious Holy Lord Jesus standing at the right hand of God. He had begun his words describing the God of glory (verse 2), and now he saw something of the revelation of that glory. And he saw Jesus standing on His right hand as God’s Messiah.
56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
At what he saw he could not help himself, and he cried out and declared his interpretation of what he saw. It revealed that the Son of Man had truly come in the clouds to the throne of God and had received His everlasting dominion and Kingly Rule (Daniel 7.13-14), and it was in those terms that he expressed it. It was a fulfillment of Jesus promise to His judges in Matthew 26.64. This is the only use of the term Son of Man outside the Gospels, where it is restricted to Jesus using it of Himself, apart from in Revelation 1.13; 14.14 where it refers to the glorious Son of Man, illustrating both the early nature of the narrative, and its uniqueness. It confirmed that Jesus was the glorious Messiah, having been given all authority in heaven and earth. And He was standing because He was ready to receive His servant. He knew what was coming next. He had experienced something similar Himself.
Some consider that Jesus Is standing because He is acting as a witness, as He bears testimony to Stephen before the Father. A witness always had to stand. And we need not doubt that Jesus bore witness to the Godhead of Stephen’s triumph. But a welcome would also stand. And Luke probably intends us to contrast this open welcome by the Lord of glory with the rejection of the Sanhedrin. The prime authority in heaven welcomes Stephen even while the authorities on earth dispatch him.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
Everything broke at once. They could no longer restrain themselves. With cries of anguish the members of the Sanhedrin blocked their ears at this blasphemy, a symbolic gesture indicating their horror, and rushing at him, dragged him through the street to outside the city, where they stoned him. It was as though they had been taken with madness. All restraint had gone. Such moments of madness can seize even the sanest of people. And it had happened here. They had become a lynch mob. That is what unreasoning belief mingled with a bad conscience can do to people.
The rules for stoning were observed so scrupulously that a mature young man called Saul, who had not been a witness, demonstrated his oneness with the sentence by guarding the coats of the witnesses as they carried out the stoning, because he knew that the Law said that he could not be the first to participate because he was not a witness. But he was an angry and vengeful young man, full of hate for Stephen, and wanted to show as far as he could that he thought that Stephen deserved everything that he received.
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
But as they stoned him, Stephen looked up to heaven and prayed to ‘the Lord’, calling out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. He had no doubt in his heart, only joy, and concern for those who were doing this to him.
60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
And then as the stones rained down on him he knelt, and crying with a loud voice, pleaded, “Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge.” And with that he ‘fell asleep’. All who belong to the Lord Jesus do not die they what? – sleep. He was at peace.
8.1 ‘And Saul was consenting to his death.’
What a chill this brings on our hearts. He stood there silent and seemingly impassive, but his heart was filled with hate and anger. And as he watched he nodded his approval. This was not passive acknowledgement. It was wholehearted acquiescence. We can even read his thoughts. ‘May such be the end of all these heretics, and I will make it my responsibility to ensure that it is.’
