CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 6:8. Faith.—According to the best texts should be grace (Acts 4:33); the change having probably been made to correspond with Acts 6:5.
Acts 6:9. The synagogue which is called, etc., should be of the Libertines and of the Cyrenians and of, etc. The Rabbis credited Jerusalem with 480 synagogues, but Talmudic information is not perfectly reliable. The Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians may have attended one synagogue (Holtzmann, Hausrath, Zöckler, Plumptre), and the Cilicians along with the Asians another; but the simplest view is to repeat “some of,” etc., before each proper name, and to count as many synagogues as there are names (Meyer, De Wette, Hackett). The Libertini were Jews who had been slaves at Rome, having been deported thither after Pompey’s war, but on obtaining their freedom had returned to Jerusalem. Tacitus (Ann., ii. 85) speaks of 4,000 of such Jewish freedmen as having been banished to Sardinia. From this class Stephen may have sprung. The Cyrenians were Jews from Cyrene (Acts 2:10), of the population of which island the fourth part were Jews. The Alexandrians.—From the city of that name, of which the fifth part was Jewish. To the synagogue of Cilicia Saul of Tarsus may have belonged (Acts 7:58). Asia, being distinguished from Cilicia, cannot mean the whole of Asia Minor, but must be restricted to Proconsular Asia, as in Acts 2:9; Acts 16:6; Acts 19:10; Acts 19:22; Acts 19:26-27, etc. (Holtzmann); though Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 150) thinks the use of the term here “is quite consistent with either the Roman (the narrower) or the popular (the wider) sense.”
Acts 6:11. Suborned.—I.e., secretly instructed, putting the charge into their mouths (compare Matthew 26:59-60). Blasphemous words.—Compare Matthew 26:65.
Acts 6:12. The elders and the Scribes.—The classes from which the Sanhedrim was taken.
Acts 6:13. Set up.—Introduced and placed before the council (Hackett). False witnesses.—No extravagant exaggeration of Luke, contradicted by the actual facts of the case (Baur, Zeller, Overbeck), since, according to chap. 7. Stephen had made no such assault upon the Law and the Temple as that with which he was charged (Zöckler). It is noticeable that the adjective blasphemous is now in the best texts omitted as an insertion from Acts 6:11.
Acts 6:14. This Jesus of Nazareth.—In the witnesses’ mouths an expression of contempt. Shall destroy this place.—The temple, in a room or chamber of which the court may have been sitting. Based probably on a reminiscence of Christ’s words in John 2:19, which Stephen may have quoted. The customs which Moses delivered us.—Compare Acts 16:21, Acts 21:21; meaning the ceremonial ordinances.
Acts 6:15. All that sat in the council. Baur finds in the statement that the scene with reference to Stephen was laid before the council a desire to institute a parallel between Stephen’s trial and that of Christ; but no sufficient reason can be given why the accuracy of Luke’s narrative should be challenged. Weizsäcker admits that Stephen was put upon his trial, and, as the result, stoned to death (see on Acts 7:59). The face of an angel.—Signifying more than that Stephen’s countenance was illumined by a radiant serenity produced by the fulness of the Spirit which dwelt within him (Holtzmann). At the least the expression points to a supernatural lustre like that with which the face of Moses shone on descending from Sinai (Exodus 34:29-35; 2 Corinthians 3:13). According to Old Testament conceptions angels were superterrestrial beings, who, in order to be seen by men, were able to assume bodily forms corresponding to their rank. Since all in the council beheld Stephen’s face, it is clear that the historian is not dealing with a vision, but depicting an external phenomenon.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 6:8-15
The Ministry of Stephen; or, the Rising of a Bright Particular Star
I. The miracles and preaching of Stephen.—
1. His miracles were great.
(1) In origin, proceeding from the grace (rather than faith) of which he was full—grace here being the supernatural endowment conferred on him by the Holy Ghost.
(2) In efficiency, being remarkable for the indications they gave of divine power.
(3) In number, it being most likely they were neither few nor small, but numerous and striking.
(4) In impressiveness, having in all probability arrested the attention and awed the hearts of those in whose presence they were done. What they were is not told—an indication that Luke was not composing a romance but writing a history.
2. His preaching was irresistible.
(1) For the wisdom (knowledge of divine truth) and spiritual insight (discernment of its applicability to souls) which it displayed, and (compare Luke 21:15),
(2) for the Holy Spirit who was behind that wisdom and that insight as their source, inspiration, and power (compare Mark 13:11). No interpreter of Scripture can be placed alongside of the Holy Ghost for either clearness or force of exposition (1 Corinthians 2:13).
II. The opponents and revilers of Stephen.—
1. His opponents. Certain parties from the various synagogues in the metropolis, of which, according to the Rabbis, there were then 480.
(1) Their designations. Libertines: freed men who had been slaves, their fathers having been sold as bondmen to Rome after Pompey’s expedition against Judæa in B.C. 53. Cyrenians: belonging to the city of Cyrene in Lybia, North Africa, of whose population a fourth part were Jews (Jos., Ant., XIV. vii., 2), the rest being derived from the Lacedemonians (Wars, II. xvi., 4). From this class came Simon the Cyrenian (Luke 23:26), with his two sons, Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21). Cyrenians attended Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and preached to the Greek-speaking Jews at Antioch (Acts 11:20), while Lucius of Cyrene was among the prophets and teachers associated with the Church in that city (Acts 13:1). Alexandrians: Jews from Alexandria in Egypt, the second city in the empire, and a principal seat of Hellenic learning and culture. Numbering one hundred thousand, they occupied a quarter of the city by themselves, were governed by an ethnarch of their own (i.e., enjoyed Home Rule), and had high privileges conferred upon them by Ptolemy Philadelphus. There Philo at that time resided. From Alexandria in former times (B.C. 280) had come the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Cilicians: from the south-east of Asia Minor, where many Jews were settled, Antiochus the Great having established a colony there. Among those attached to their synagogue would no doubt be Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:11). Asians: from the pro-consular province or geographical division of Asia Minor, which included Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, and had Ephesus as its capital. Asian Jews appear at a later stage in the history of Paul (Acts 21:27).
(2) Their disputation. They discussed with Stephen the teaching he promulgated, which, in addition to the doctrine of Jesus and the resurrection, embraced that of the passing away of the Old Testament temple-worship, for the permanence of which they as patriots and disciples of Moses jealously contended.
(3) Their defeat. They could not resist the wisdom and spirit with which he spoke. Not his equals in either Biblical learning or sacred eloquence, they could not reply to his arguments, or deny his conclusions, being inwardly convinced of the truth of both.
(4) Their duplicity. To avenge themselves of their victorious adversary they secretly instructed witnesses to appear against him with a trumped-up accusation, the terms of which they had previously concerted.
2. His revilers. These wretched instrument; of his opponents’ treachery, were without question, “lewd fellows of the baser sort,” creatures without consciences—
“Fellows by the hand of nature mark’d
Quoted and sign’d to do a deed of shame”—
Shakespeare, King John, Act IV., Sc. 2.
who for a consideration would lend themselves to any “bloody villainy,” and would not hesitate to swear away the lives of the innocent. Such monsters of wickedness had appeared against the Saviour (Matthew 26:59).
III. The arrest and indictment of Stephen.—
1. His arrest.
(1) Moved by his defeated opponents. A poor answer to give another’s arguments to shut him up in prison or charge him with a crime he has not committed. But people who fail in logic frequently resort to law, endeavouring to reach by force or fraud what they have not been able to gain by honesty and reason.
(2) Effected by the populace, the elders, and the Scribes. It is never difficult to inflame the mob, whose inconstancy is as proverbial as that of the wind. If the elders and the Scribes were ablaze already against the new sect and its leaders, hitherto the people had sided with the Christians (Acts 5:22). Now, however, their patriotic fears had been stirred by the slanders poured into their ears.
(3) Followed by a speedy trial. Having seized him either in his house or most likely in the temple while teaching they hurried him off, as they had hurried Christ, not to prison but to judgment—haling him before the council or Sanhedrim which probably had arranged to meet for despatch of business, so important was the occasion that had arisen.
2. His indictment.
(1) Technically correct. Consisting of two counts which were really one. First, that he had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Secondly, and in this lay the blasphemy, that he had uttered words against the temple and the law, saying that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple and change the customs which Moses had delivered to the nations. Like the similar impeachment preferred against Christ (Matthew 26:61; Matthew 26:63; John 5:18) which had rested on words actually used by Him, these accusations against Stephen may have been based on sentences which had escaped his lips. Yet were they
(2) Essentially incorrect. Stephen indeed had, ostensibly, and in the letter, spoken against the Hebrew Lawgiver and the Jewish temple in so far as he had taught, that the Christian was superior to the Mosaic dispensation, that the days of sacrificial worship were numbered, that the gospel was designed to supersede the law, that observance of the Levitical ritual was henceforth to be no condition of justification, and that worship was no more to be limited to Jerusalem, but might be freely, if spiritually, offered anywhere. Yet in so teaching Stephen had neither blasphemed God nor contemned Moses, inasmuch as Christ was the prophet like unto himself (Moses), whom the Lawgiver foretold, and the system of worship inaugurated by Christ was in reality a carrying forward into fulfilment of all that had been prefigured and pre-signified by the Mosaic dispensation. That Stephen’s accusers felt secretly conscious of distorting his words has been argued from the anti-climax which reveals itself in their indictment. First, before his arrest they accuse the eloquent deacon of blaspheming Moses and God—a palpable exaggeration. Next, in the council they drop the term of blasphemy and limit their charge to speaking against the temple and the law. Lastly, confronted with the accused, they water down their language to this, that they had heard him repeat some statement about Jesus of Nazareth’s intention to destroy the temple and change its customs.
IV. The attitude and appearance of Stephen.—
1. His attitude. One of unresisting meekness. With perfect calmness he listened to the charges preferred against him. Like his master, he opened not his mouth, answered not a word till invited to speak. Conscious of no crime, he was in no haste to defend himself.
2. His appearance. One of unearthly beauty. “All who sat in the council,” his accusers and his judges, “fastening their eyes upon him,” in expectation of what he would reply to the grave indictment to which he had listened, “saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” The radiance was one which never shone on sea or land, was more than the serene and dignified lustre, solar light it has been named, wherewith the soul in moments of crisis, when conscious of innocence, illuminates the countenance; it was the shine of supernatural glory, reflected back from the face of the Risen Christ on whom he gazed (Acts 7:55)—like the light which rayed forth from the countenance of Moses when he descended from the Mount (Exodus 34:29-30; Exodus 34:35)—attesting to those who beheld it, his innocence.
Learn.—
1. The secret of true ministerial influence—being filled with grace and power, with wisdom and the Holy Spirit.
2. The triumphant career which lies before the gospel—its enemies will not be able for ever to resist its progress, dispute its truth, or prevent its sway.
3. The certainty that all faithful preachers of the gospel will excite against themselves hostility,—all whose interests the gospel threatens will array themselves against it.
4. The falsehood of all such charges against the gospel as that it is revolutionary and destructive, whereas it works its changes by slow degrees and destroys nothing but sin.
5. The glory that will even here irradiate and hereafter crown every faithful servant of Christ.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 6:8. The Biography of Stephen.
I. A devout Christian.—Full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.
II. A trusted Deacon.—The first elected to the office.
III. An eloquent Preacher.—His opponents could not resist the wisdom with which he spake,
IV. A glorified Prisoner.—His face shone as it had been the face of an angel.
V. A blessed Martyr.—“They stoned Stephen,” etc. (Acts 7:59).
Acts 6:15. The Face of an Angel.—“Dante, describing the angels whom he met in the Paradiso, impresses us with their external glory and their spiritual effulgence. Invariably he makes the former a result of the latter. With closer faithfulness to physical science than he dreamed, and building better than he knew he sings (Paradiso, Canto ix., 13–19).
‘Another of those splendours
Approach me, and its will to pleasure me
It signifies by brightening outwardly,
As one delighted to do good;
Became a thing transplendent in my sight,
As a fine ruby smitten by the sun.’ ”—
Joseph Cook’s Monday Lectures, Second Series, p. 148.
Stephen’s illuminated Face.—“He had been accused of blaspheming Moses, and lo! the clearness of the face of Moses, a reflection of God’s glory (Acts 7:2), was to be seen on him and vindicated him. A morning beam of the heavenly splendour, in which the teachers of righteousness will eternally shine (Daniel 12:3), surrounded him; and well might he have been regarded as an angel, since, as the angels always behold the face of God, and reflect His glory, so was it granted to him in this hour of witness for encouragement to look, first into the opened mystery of God’s historical glory upon the earth, and then into the opened heaven, and to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).”—Besser.
Acts 6:8-15. The Opponents of Stephen.
I. Devout Jews.—They were Stephen’s countrymen and fellow-worshippers, believers in the same God, disciples of the same lawgiver, probably members of the same synagogue. Three arguments which should have caused them to befriend rather than hate Stephen.
II. Defeated controversialists.—They could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spake. This should have cautioned them against opposing one who obviously possessed clearer insight than themselves, and one with whom their inmost convictions sided.
III. Unscrupulous calumniators.—They suborned men who said (no doubt what Stephen’s adversaries told them) that Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God—Moses first and God second—which was not true.
IV. Murderous conspirators.—Their object in moving the elders and the Scribes was to bring upon their foe the wrath of the Sanhedrim, which they knew would mean arrestment, imprisonment, and perhaps death.
Stephen the Deacon.
I. The central figure of this whole section is St. Stephen. He is introduced into the narrative with the same startling suddenness which we may note in the cases of Barnabas and Elijah. He runs a rapid course, flings all, apostles and every one else, into the shade for a time, and then disappears,” exemplifying the saying of inspiration, “The first shall be last, and the last first.”
II. The union of the words grace and power is significant. “It was not the intellect, or the eloquence, or the activity of St. Stephen which made him powerful among the people and crowned his labours with success. It was his abundant grace. Eloquence and learning, active days and laborious nights, are good and necessary things. But these will be utterly useless and ineffective apart from Christ and the power of His grace. To this busy age these words convey a useful warning that the best organisations and schemes will be useless to produce Stephen’s power, unless Stephen’s grace be found there as well.”
III. “This passage is a prophecy and picture of the future in another aspect. The fulness of grace in Stephen wrought powerfully amongst the people. It was the savour of life unto life in some. But in others it was a savour of death unto death, and provoked them to evil deeds, for they suborned men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”
IV. These words, even through their falsehood, afford “a glimpse into the character of St. Stephen’s preaching. A false accusation need not be necessarily altogether false.” “In order to be effective” it must have” some basis of truth. St. Stephen was ripening for heaven more rapidly than the apostles themselves. He was learning more rapidly than St. Peter himself the true spiritual meaning of the Christian scheme. He had taught, in no unambiguous language, the universal character of the gospel and the catholic mission of the Church.”
V. “We learn how religious zeal can overthrow religion and work out the purpose of evil. Religious zeal, mere party spirit taking the place of real religion, led the Hellenists to suborn men and falsely accuse St. Stephen. They made an idol of the system of Judaism, and forgot its spirit. They worshipped their idol so much that they were ready to break the commandments of God for its sake. How true to life has our own age found this prophetic picture!”—G. T. Stokes, D.D.