‘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.'
Some may question how this could happen under Roman rule. We do not actually know the circumstances under which the laws of blasphemy could be cited in order to defend the death penalty. Certainly instant death could be demanded on any who encroached on the Temple beyond the allowable limit. It seems very possible therefore that blasphemy was the one crime for which the Sanhedrin could pass the death penalty. But whether it was so or not, Pilate was at this stage in a precarious position and he was in no case to dispute the activities of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. He was too busy watching his own back. And they were experienced politicians. They knew how far they could go.
Note.
Perhaps at this stage we may seek to establish what Stephen was not saying. He was not rejecting the Law. Indeed he had continually cited the Law (Genesis/Exodus). All the way through he was upholding the Law against those who had broken it (Acts 7:8; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:53). Nor was he rejecting Israel's worship as such, for he had upheld the Tabernacle in which that worship was originally conducted. Nor was he rejecting the Temple. What he was doing was rejecting the overemphasis on the Temple itself as the centre of God's saving plan, as the focal point of men's thinking, and as something that was indestructible, as though it had somehow come down from God.
His thought was that like all else the Temple was of human origin, and that therefore Temple worship, which was carried on in a building of man's devising, should not focus in on itself but should turn men's eyes upwards beyond the Temple towards that which was not made with hands, to the living God Himself, and towards His Messiah, enthroned in Heaven. Thus men around the world should not be looking towards the Temple, as they tended to do, as though God were trapped in Jerusalem, but should be looking upwards towards God and His Messiah wherever they were. Perhaps he had in mind Jesus' words in the context of John 4:21-24. “The hour comes and now is when the true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.”
So his thought was that now that men no longer had a God-designed Tabernacle which in a sense, at least in concept, had come down from heaven, they should look, not to the Temple, but beyond it to One Who had come down from Heaven Who was even greater than the Tabernacle. One Who had now replaced the Temple as the focal point (John 2:19-21) Thus they should look to a heavenly Tabernacle, to where God was on His throne. And this would involve recognition of the Righteous One Whom He had sent, for He was now on the throne as man's Saviour. Man should now therefore look to God's Tabernacle in Heaven. It was God Who would take this further by destroying the very Temple itself, because even Christians were still wedded to it.
End of note.
EXCURSUS 1.
Are We To See Stephen's Words As Verbally Inspired Scriptural Truth?
These words of Stephen raise an important question that we need to deal with, and that is as to whether Stephen's words were seen by Luke as conveying ‘verbally inspired Scriptural Truth'. To many the question will seem unimportant. They simply class the Scriptures along with other writings. But it is a question that in its general application needs to be carefully thought about for any who believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
We must first of all define what we mean by ‘Scriptural truth'. Paul tells us that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, etc.' and there is a sense in which all Scripture is ‘true'. But in saying this it is clear that we must distinguish between Scriptures where the very words are themselves teaching divine truth, and Scriptures where the words are correctly recorded and are a true record of what was said, but are not themselves to be seen as expressing divine truth.
One book which faces us up with this very question, and is fairly simple to deal with, is the Book of Job. There we have words spoken by Job and his four friends, and it is necessary for us to consider which of their words are Scriptural truth, and which are simply an accurate record of false ideas being put forward by his ‘friends'. The words accurately present what was said, but without necessarily themselves expressing Scriptural truth.
That this is so, comes out clearly at the end of the book, for there God firmly declares that Job's friends have not spoken of Him what is right (Job 42:7). That tells us as specifically as anything can that we are not to see their words as conveying Scriptural truth, even though they are in the Scriptures and are to be seen as presenting a true record of what they had said. Thus if we base our doctrine on what they taught we will go sadly astray. This makes it clear that we have to be discerning when we use Scripture. We have to distinguish when the Scriptures are putting forward ‘revealed truth', and when they are telling us what people said without necessarily indicating that it was Scriptural truth.
So next time someone quotes something to you from the Book of Job, first check on who said what. This does not mean that the book of Job itself cannot be classed as ‘inspired Scripture'. What it does mean is that as Scripture what it is claiming to do is to accurately inform us concerning the distorted teaching of these men, while also informing us that their words are not to be seen as presenting us with the truth. It is explaining the false arguments that they used against Job. We cannot therefore accept the words of these men as teaching ‘Scriptural truth'. We may even say that they are actually teaching ‘Scriptural untruths'.
To take an even more definite example, when Satan told Eve that the fruit would be good for her and Adam, his words were certainly Scripture (that is, they are recorded in Scripture as indicating what he said, and can be relied as an accurate representation of what was truly said), but they were equally certainly not conveying Scriptural truth, for they were basically a lie, and shown to be so. So always when considering Scripture we must ask, ‘Who said it?' and ‘Under what circumstances?'
Now when we come to the Acts of the Apostles the same question arises. Take for example the words of Sapphira in Acts 5:8. When she replied, “Yes, for so much.”, was that Scripture? Well, yes, for the words are included in Acts, they are included in the Scriptures. But are they presenting Scriptural truth? The answer is clearly no. She is recorded as telling a lie, and is punished for it.
At the other extreme we have the Apostles. When they stood and spoke authoritatively, speaking by the Holy Spirit, Jesus said of them that they would be led into all truth (John 16:13). Thus we have good grounds for saying that under such circumstances the writers who recorded their words would look on them as ‘Scriptural truth'.
Other speakers may well be seen as coming somewhere in the middle. Their words may be seen as accurately recorded, and even true, without necessarily being seen as ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth'. In other words they are words which must be judged by normal standards. This is particularly relevant in what we are looking at here, for the question must arise, ‘Are we to see Stephen's words as an inspired record of what Stephen said, without his words necessarily being seen by the writer as carrying the same inspiration as the Apostles? Or are we to see them as on the same level of inspiration as the Apostles, and therefore without error?' The question is not whether he was ‘inspired' in a sense in which great preachers of today might be inspired, or even whether the Holy Spirit was giving him words to speak as a Christian on trial was entitled to receive them, in accordance with Luke 12:12. Both of those would undoubtedly be so. The question is, was his inspiration seen as of the same level as that of the Apostles, and the great Old Testament writing prophets, making what he said completely dependable?
We should consider here, for example, 1 Corinthians 14. There the New Testament prophets were seen as on the whole being ‘inspired' by the Spirit in the church meetings. But Paul quite clearly indicates that their words are not necessarily to be seen as ‘verbally inspired', for their words are rather to be judged by other prophets (1 Corinthians 14:29). So he for one does not see all people who are ‘inspired' by the Holy Spirit as being what we call ‘verbally inspired' and therefore speaking without error. (This is important for any groups which practise spiritual gifts to appreciate). In other words he states that the words of such people cannot necessarily be accepted as absolute truth, but must be tested to discover whether they are true or not. This does not especially denigrate them. It simply makes clear the standard that must be applied to their teaching.
The same thing applies to Stephen. It is not necessarily to denigrate him, or to throw doubt on the truth of his words, to declare that his words were not necessarily ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth', even though we may judge them as in general Scripturally true because they accord with other Scriptures. For it is vitally important that we do distinguish between what is set up as ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth' (to be accepted as God's infallible word to man) and what is able to be seen as in accordance with Scriptural truth, while not itself necessarily being technically so.
The truth is that unless we are to lose all ability to make such distinctions we must when studying the Scriptures set up various markers defining when something is ‘verbally inspired Scriptural truth' (the verbally inspired word of truth) as opposed to seeing something as Scripturally true because it accords with Scriptural truth found elsewhere, but not as verbally inspired Scriptural truth. Jesus, for example, does seem to have intended to lay down that kind criteria in His choosing of His Apostles. He does appear to have later declared that they, and they alone, will be the final arbiters of truth (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; John 14:16-17; John 14:26; John 15:26-27; John 16:13). Thus it seems to me that we have to say that, while in the case of Stephen, and others like him such as Ananias, what he said may be equally as true as what our best teachers say when interpreting Scripture, it must be judged on that basis, and cannot be classed as itself on the level of ‘infallible Scriptural truth'.
We may rightly be impressed by Stephen's words. We may indeed hold them as having been spoken under a large level of inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit, even greater possibly than we expect from our own preachers, but we must stop short of calling it ‘infallible Scriptural truth'. If we do not take this position it seems to me that we lose all criterion by which we can judge what is ‘infallible Scriptural truth'. We accept that the words of the Apostles were, when speaking or writing under inspiration, ‘infallible Scriptural truth', because we have as grounds for taking up such a position the authority of Jesus. We accept the Old Testament rightly interpreted as such because we have Jesus' authority for doing so. But we have no such authority for Stephen and others in a parallel situation. If we take up any other position than the one just outlined it then becomes in the end simply a matter of one person's opinion against another. It is we who become the arbiters of inspiration.
When the early church thought in terms of ‘inspired Scripture' their criterion was clear. The Old Testament in its original text was so because it had been vouched for by Jesus Christ Himself (although even then we have to be discerning). The Apostolic writings in their original texts were so because they were written either by Apostles, or by men under the close supervision of Apostles (Mark and Luke). Otherwise the church on the whole rejected other writings as ‘authoritative Scriptural truth', even when they allowed them to be read in church as ‘helpful'.
On this criteria therefore we may truly say that Stephen was inspired by the Spirit, but not that he had such inspiration that the early church (and in this case Luke) saw his words as verbally inspired Scriptural truth. That is not to cast them off. And like any Spirit inspired sermon they may warm our hearts and speak to us through the Spirit. They may still bless us, as any Scriptural sermon or writing may. But that will be because we see them as agreeing with Scriptural truth, not because they are guaranteed as such by the nature of their inspiration.
With this regard it is possibly significant that Luke does not in fact introduce his words with any suggestion that the Holy Spirit was speaking through Stephen in some special revelatory way. Verse 55 may be seen as reflecting back, but the emphasis there is rather on the amazing revelation that he saw. And Acts 6:5; Acts 6:8; Acts 6:10 all certainly reveal him as a man through whom the Spirit was at work. But at the crucial place where Luke could have spoken he was silent. This might suggest to many that while the Holy Spirit certainly stood there with him, it was not in order to give him that special inspiration that we call ‘verbal inspiration'.
On the other hand the speech can only have been given to us in full because its central message was sonsidered important. It is intended to come home to our hearts and make us aware that God's great Deliverer was seen as having come, that the land was no longer important, and that the Temple was being replaced. And by being included in such detail by Luke, and by being based on the word of God, it becomes part of the essential truth that Acts is seeking to convey.
End of Excursus.
The Persecution of the Church Causes The Word To Go Out (8:1-4).
‘And Saul was consenting to his death.'
This verse, already commented on at the end of the last section, is a link between the two sections. It not only concludes the martyrdom of Stephen, but prepares for Acts 8:4. It probably means more than just that he agreed with what happened. He was also giving his official consent and publicly putting himself forward as someone who was ready to do something about it. He was declaring that he was ready to take a positive stand against this new movement.
But who was this Saul? As he stood there disdainfully watching the deserved death of the heretic Stephen he was proud of the fact that he had been ‘circumcised on the eighth day', that he could trace his descent to Benjamin, that both his parents were Jews, that he had influential relatives (Acts 23:16-22 - his nephew moved in circles that meant that he knew of the plot, and chief captains do not listen to just anyone), that he was a dedicated Pharisee, that all held him blameless in keeping the whole Law in accordance with his Pharisaic principles (Philippians 3:5). He was also a man born free, a Roman citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 21:39), a city with its own school of philosophy, and was a disciple of Rabban Gamaliel, that righteous and respected teacher of the law. He had the best of educations and had everything going for him. But above all he had a zeal for God which meant that he was already planning to root out more of these vile heretics. He was now a man with a mission. And he clung to all that was the very opposite of all that Stephen stood for. Little did he realise that it was all shortly to come crashing down and that he would soon be a hunted man himself.
‘And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad (‘sowed as seed') throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except for the apostles.'
The consequence of Stephen's martyrdom was a clear recognition that these followers of their Messiah had become a menace and were enemies of Judaism. What might have been tolerated elsewhere could not be tolerated in Jerusalem, especially in such numbers. The result was that action was instigated in order to arrest all who followed Stephen's pernicious ideas, and the Christians soon recognised that if they did not seek refuge outside Jerusalem they would all be put in prison. Thus they scattered throughout Judaea and Samaria. The persecution was not organised on a large enough scale to reach out as far as that. It was limited to religious minded Jerusalem. And as they went, they went everywhere preaching the word.
‘Except for the Apostles.' The Apostles remained in Jerusalem. It was certainly brave of them, but they had probably decided that for the sake of those in the infant church in Jerusalem who could not flee they must be there to give them support. And there were also those in prison who had to be attended to. Jesus Himself had taught them the importance of visiting those in prison (Matthew 25:36; Matthew 25:39-40). The flourishing church had needed them. The sorely wounded church needed them more.
However, it may well be that as recognised figures who had themselves for years caused no trouble as they went about Jerusalem, they were not in quite the same danger as the Hellenistic Christians. They had after all not drawn down on themselves the wrath of the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues. Yet unquestionably some of the backlash would fall on them, for they could hardly avoid some of the blame resulting from the behaviour of men whom they had appointed to responsible positions in the church. On the other hand the authorities would probably think twice before they actually attacked these twelve men who were so popular among the people because they continually healed and cast out evil spirits. Indeed it is significant that no attempt seems to have been made at this stage to arrest the Apostles themselves.