Stephen’s brief career of service and preaching is a powerful example of faith in action. Like Joseph, not a word of any sin or failure is mentioned. Like his Lord, he died praying for his murderers. Stephen’s readiness (and eagerness!) to give account of the hope that was in him finds few equals.
Stephen was appointed as a servant within the household, to administer the relief effort for those in need. He comes highly recommended to this work: “A man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” We have no reason to suspect he neglected his appointed duties, but the recorded events of his life revolve around his preaching.
Here we find our first lesson from this man’s service. Whatever our place in the body (hand, foot, mouth, etc.), it is always appropriate for us to bear witness to others of the glorious hope gained in Christ Jesus. No brother or sister may find excuse for silence by claiming “that’s not what I do best.”
Stephen preached in his accustomed environment. He was a “Hellenist,” that is, a Greek-speaking Jew, not native to Judea. It was among fellow Hellenist’s that he preached. How often has the point been made that we have plenty of preaching work available in our own back yard? And yet how seldom do we get around to it!
Wisdom met with folly
The reception to Stephen’s “wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” was not good. Not content with simply rejecting the message, some of the Hellenist’s felt it necessary to prove themselves more Jewish than the Judeans, and they brought charges against Stephen before the council. The charges were a pack of lies and distortions. The trial of Jesus proved–and our own experience confirms–that truth is the first casualty when political issues are at stake.
Such issues were clearly involved. Acts 6:1 Informs us that the disciples were increasing in number. At least twice massive numbers of converts had been baptized. All efforts to silence the apostles had failed. Here was yet another outspoken leader emerging. We can hear the authorities lamenting, “We must put a stop to this! This new sect is getting entirely out of control!” The will of the flesh will ever lead us to our own destruction and will never admit to its own folly.
It is worth noting who tried Stephen on these charges. The high priest officiated, the Sanhedrin was the jury. Both the priest and the majority of the Council were Sadducee’s, who rejected the very idea of resurrection. During the ministry of the Lord Jesus, the main opposition came from the Pharisees. Other than the two cleansing’s of the temple, the Sadducee’s felt mainly unaffected by Jesus. And besides, they were delighted at how Jesus was embarrassing the Pharisees!
In the Acts the emphasis shifts dramatically: now it is the Sadducee’s who are the enemies. Clearly the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus is the explanation for this massive shift. All the way through the Acts, from the counsel of Gamaliel in chapter 5 to the dispute at Paul’s first trial in chapter 23, we find the Pharisees far more willing to give the Christians a hearing, even if they are not actually believers themselves. The Pharisees were predisposed to accept a teaching of resurrection. And besides, it gave them a weapon against the ruling Sadducee’s!
So it was not merely a theological issue to the authorities. It had become something that affected the balance of political power between these rival factions. The case of Saul of Tarsus takes on a new dimension in light of the political situation. It was the high priest (the head Sadducee) who gave the letters of authority to Saul (an up-and-coming Pharisee) which he carried to Damascus. What bitter hatred of the Way must have filled Saul to move him to overcome the barriers to such an alliance!
The face of an angel
In this politically charged, hostile environment, Stephen heard his accusers twist his words into blasphemies. The gross injustice, the transparent lies, the foregone verdict and sentence would have made most of us lash out in anger or collapse in tears. But in Stephen’s case, “all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.”
The only parallel to this extraordinary figure that I am aware of is Jacob’s exclamation of relief when he finally met Esau on his way home from his sojourn with Laban: “Truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God, with such favor have you received me.” (Genesis 33:10) When Jacob left home, it was Esau’s avowed intent to kill him. When he returned, Esau embraced him. Jacob’s surprise is registered in this astonishing comparison to the face of God. (There is an interesting lesson here about expecting the worst from people, but that will have to be addressed another time.) The point here is that Esau’s face was like God’s, and Stephen’s face was like an angel’s, in that they reflected the very character of God: “merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exodus 34:6).
Stephen’s scathing indictment of his own accusers at the end of his defense proves that he was not a spineless doormat. Rather, he was gracious because he had been the recipient of grace. Having been forgiven an incalculable sum (his sins and trespasses), he was willing to forgive these men the relatively unimportant matter of his murder. He had already given up his life, and had thereby found eternal life. He did not fear mere men, who, after they killed him, had no more power to harm him. He prayed for his persecutors and gave his last moments trying to save them.
What a perspective! We know all the teachings of Jesus that are alluded to in the previous paragraph, but this man actually lived them. Which points out, of course, that there is no reason we cannot live them too.
A short history of Israel
Stephen was brought to trial on charges of blasphemy against Moses and God, of speaking against the temple and the law. As a defense, he recited selected incidents from the history of Israel! A most peculiar line of defense, particularly considering that his audience, of all people, did not need such a history lesson.
Closer examination of this opportunity reveals, first, that Stephen actually does address the charges leveled against him; second, that he turns the tables and accuses his faithless accusers; and third, that there is real Christian love in Stephen, even toward his persecutors.
It takes no effort to simply deny allegations; the accused almost always pleads not guilty. Stephen did not waste his breath saying the charges were false. Far more effective than a mere denial, he demonstrated his reverence for God (Acts 7:2, 9, 17, 25, 32, 45, 48), his reverence for Moses (verses 20, 22, 35, 37), his respect for the temple as God’s house (verses 44-50) and his respect for the law of God (verses 38, 44 and 53).
Stephen’s defense would have been worth recording even if there were nothing more to it than this masterful demonstration that the charges were untrue. But defending himself was really Stephen’s least concern. He treated the situation as if the nation’s leadership were on trial. Every historical incident Stephen brings up is an accusation against the current leadership, because every one is a type that demonstrates their unbelief.
It might be argued that we are reading too much into this, that no one would use such an obscure way to make such accusations. The end of chapter 7 shows that Stephen’s hearers did not find it obscure: “Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth against him… They cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him.”
How angry does someone have to be before they literally grind their teeth? This phrase indicates the building of anger as they were forced to sit silently and let the defense have its say. These men of the council were sophisticated, urbane politicians. They were used to political controversy, including the outrageous accusations made by politicians everywhere. How often do members of a ruling body lose such control of themselves as we see in the violent outburst at the end of Stephen’s remarks?
It was the hearing of “these things,” the whole defense and not just the closing indictment, that so enraged them. They clearly understood the very sharp point of Stephen’s historical allusions.
A thorough investigation of the incidents Stephen referred to is well worth the effort. Even the fine details can be seen to be significant. An in-depth study of Acts 7 is recommended to the reader; a sampling is provided here to whet the appetite:
- The promises to Abraham are recalled because proof of the hope of resurrection is implicit in those promises (verse 5). The resurrection of Jesus is the real core of the accusations. Verse 6 then includes an insinuation that would have been viewed as inflammatory: who is Stephen implying is the real seed of Abraham, and who are the foreigners?
- Verse 9 regarding Joseph could hardly be clearer in naming the jealousy of the Jewish leaders (the “patriarchs” of their own time) as the reason for the rejection and murder of Jesus. “But God was with him,” rescued him, and made him ruler of all. This much of the type was already fulfilled, but it was not until the “second visit” that the jealous brothers came to understand the truth of who their brother was. Could anyone have missed the point?
- Quite a bit of time is spent on Moses, the one person even the Sadducee’s revered. Verse 25 is positively scathing: “He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand, but they did not understand.” Why would Moses have expected such a thing? Because of the time set by God, as Stephen pointed out in verse 17. These rulers also had a set time, from Daniel’s 70-weeks’ prophecy. Why did they not understand that Jesus had come to give them deliverance? This whole section is just loaded with types of the nation’s rejection of Jesus.
- If there was any need to establish the validity of the argument from type, Stephen did so in verse 37: “This is that Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up.” Teeth were already being ground at the implications of Stephen’s remarks. This quote from Deuteronomy was proof that this line of defense was absolutely legitimate.
- The final point made is about God’s house, against which Stephen was accused of speaking. He begins with the tabernacle, and interestingly calls it the tent of witness. God’s house was not supposed to be worshiped itself. It was supposed to be a witness to the true God. No building made by man can contain God. The true house of God was being built by Jesus and was composed of people. Saul of Tarsus was present, and would officiate in a few minutes at Stephen’s execution. What poignancy did the converted Paul feel as he penned Ephesians 2:19-22 years later, having now come to fully understand what Stephen was talking about?
Love your enemies
Stephen’s entire defense was a turning of the tables on his accusers. Yet there is no hint of vindictiveness on his part. Within his arguments from the types of the Old Testament are prophecies of eventual repentance. Even his very strong indictment delivered at the close is a plea for them to repent.
Stephen is seen here to be one of the very prophets he refers to as his accusers’ perpetual victims. A vision is given to him: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” Perhaps he saw a vision like Ezekiel’s in Ezekiel 1 or like John’s in Revelation 4. Something might have been learned by listening to him describe what he saw, but they could not bear to let him go on.
Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies, to pray for those who persecute them. This Stephen did. How many of us fail to keep this command, under far less provocation!
Every bit of information we have about Stephen invites us to follow his example. He was a willing worker, a serious Bible student, eager to share the good news of salvation, forthright in denouncing sin while, at the same time, making every effort to save the sinner.
We sometimes stand in awe of such giants of faith when we encounter them in the scriptures. We tend to believe that we cannot ever be in the same class. But Stephen was a human being, not significantly different from any of us. Perhaps the difference is vision. Stephen had a vision of the glory of God, and Jesus standing at His right hand. That same vision is available to us, as often as we will let it fill our minds and direct our thoughts.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One