Chapter 15

Acts 6:8–7:1

Literary Context

The seventh and last episode of Luke’s description of the life, witness, trials, and growth of the church in Jerusalem (3:1–8:3) recounts the ministry, trial, and death of Stephen (6:8–8:3). Up to this point Luke has focused on the ministry of Peter: his role in the emerging identity and witness of Jesus’ followers as God’s people in 1:15–2:47; his key speech on Pentecost; and his miracles, preaching, two arrests, and two speeches before the Sanhedrin (3:1–5:42). Luke narrated the previous episode of the appointment of the Seven (6:1–7) without referring to Peter; in the brief description of the seven assistants, Stephen was placed in prominent position at the beginning of the list (6:5c-e).

This episode recounts the conflict between the Greek-speaking Jewish believers engaged in missionary outreach among the Jews of Jerusalem and the Jewish authorities. Luke introduces a new witness of Jesus and new accusations. But it is the same conflict, the one between the believers in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior and the Jewish authorities. The first interrogation by the Sanhedrin ended in a ban on speaking and a warning (4:17, 21); the second interrogation ended in a renewal of the ban on speaking along with a flogging (5:40); this third interrogation now ends in Stephen’s being stoned to death (7:60). Thus the conflict is moving toward a climax: Stephen is killed and many believers are forced to flee and leave Jerusalem in a first major persecution of the Christians.

However, even the persecution after Stephen’s death cannot stop the growth of the church. Philip takes the gospel to Samaria, to an Ethiopian official, and to the towns on the coast of the Mediterranean (8:4–40); Peter preaches in cities on the coastal plain and leads a Roman officer to faith in Jesus (9:31–11:18); Paul, who had taken part in the persecution against the Christians and who is miraculously converted, preaches in Damascus and in Jerusalem (9:19–30). Other believers take the gospel into the Syrian heartland all the way to Antioch, the capital of the province (11:19–26).

The present episode consists of four incidents: (1) the witness of Stephen (6:8–7:1); (2) the speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrin (7:2–53); (3) the death of Stephen (7:54–60); (4) the persecution of the church (8:1–3). In this first section, Stephen ministers among the Jews of Jerusalem, accompanied by miracles, and focuses on synagogues in which diaspora Jews have gathered. His teaching is powerful and convincing, which provokes unnamed diaspora Jews living in Jerusalem to conspire against Stephen to accuse him of blasphemy and take him to the Sanhedrin to stand trial. The contours of the episode form the same basic outline as in Acts 3–5:1 Stephen performs signs and wonders, he is arrested, and then he is interrogated by the Sanhedrin. The new elements are: the new opponents (diaspora Jews dispute with and take action against Stephen), and the charges of uttering blasphemy against Moses and against God.

  1. II. The Beginnings of the New People of God (1:15–8:3)
    1. B. The Life, Witness, Trials, and Growth of the Community of Believers in Jerusalem (3:1–8:3)
      1. 14. The appointment of the seven assistants (6:1–7)
      2. 15. The ministry, trial, and death of Stephen (6:8–8:3)
        1. a. The witness of Stephen (6:8–7:1)
        2. b. The speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrin (7:2–56)

Main Idea

The gospel is preached not only by the apostles but also by leaders such as Stephen, to whom God gave “grace and power” and who thus engaged in ministry among diaspora Jews living in Jerusalem. Stephen is an example of a mature Christian leader who is full of faith and wisdom, whose ministry is empowered by the Holy Spirit, and who is not intimidated by increasing opposition that eventually accuses him of blasphemy and drags him into court.

Translation

Structure and Literary Form

The incident of Stephen’s witness in Jerusalem is narrated in four parts. (1) Luke begins with a summary statement concerning Stephen’s ministry in Jerusalem (6:8).2 He is not described as a wise organizer of the distribution of food in the community, but as a believer who has been given “grace and power” and whose ministry is accompanied by miracles.

(2) Luke narrates a dispute between Stephen and diaspora Jews in the local synagogues of Jerusalem, initiated by the latter (6:9–10). Stephen proves his “grace and power” by superior argumentation in this dispute.

(3) Luke reports a conspiracy that these diaspora Jews initiate against Stephen (6:11–14). It has two stages. First, Stephen’s opponents instigate informers who spread the rumor that Stephen has uttered blasphemous words against Moses and against God. They stir up many Jews in the city as well as members of the Sanhedrin (vv. 11–12c; direct speech in v. 11c-d). Second, Stephen is confronted, probably in another debate, arrested, and taken to the Sanhedrin (vv. 12d–14; direct speech in vv. 13–14).

(4) Luke reports a session of the Sanhedrin in which Stephen is put on trial in three stages (6:13–7:1). (a) False witnesses appear who accuse Stephen of speaking against the temple and the law (v. 13) and claim that he said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the temple and change the Mosaic law (v. 14). (b) As these charges are brought against Stephen, the members of the Sanhedrin observe his demeanor and note that his face looks like the face of an angel (v. 15). (c) The interrogation by the high priest (7:1) begins with a query that allows Stephen to respond to the charges made against him.

Exegetical Outline

  1. I. The Witness of Stephen (6:8–7:1)
    1. A. The Ministry of Stephen (6:8)
      1. 1. Characterization of Stephen: He is full of grace and power (6:8a-b)
      2. 2. Miracle-working activity among the people (6:8c-d)
    2. B. Dispute between Diaspora Jews and Stephen (6:9–10)
      1. 1. Identification of the opposing diaspora Jews in local synagogues (6:9a-e)
      2. 2. Initiative of diaspora Jews who debate with Stephen (6:9f-g)
      3. 3. Superiority of Stephen in the debates (6:10)
    3. C. Conspiracy of Diaspora Jews against Stephen (6:11–12)
      1. 1. Conspiracy of diaspora Jews against Stephen (6:11–12c)
        1. a. Instigation of secret informers (6:11a-b)
        2. b. Accusation: Stephen blasphemed against Moses and God (6:11c-d)
        3. c. Instigation of the people, the elders, and the scribes (6:12a-c)
      2. 2. Arrest and summons of Stephen before the Sanhedrin (6:12d-f)
        1. a. Confrontation of Stephen (6:12d)
        2. b. Arrest of Stephen (6:12e)
        3. c. Summons of Stephen before the Sanhedrin (6:12f)
    4. D. Interrogation before the Sanhedrin (6:13–7:1)
      1. 1. Appearance of false witnesses (6:13–14)
        1. a. Accusation: Stephen speaks against the temple and the law (6:13)
        2. b. Substantiation: (Alleged) quotation from Stephen (6:14)
      2. 2. Stephen’s appearance in the Sanhedrin (6:15)
        1. a. Observation of Stephen by the members of the council (6:15a)
        2. b. Illumination of Stephen’s face by God’s glory (6:15b)
      3. 3. Interrogation by the high priest (7:1)
        1. a. Intervention of the high priest (7:1a)
        2. b. Opportunity of Stephen to address the Sanhedrin (7:1b)

Explanation of the Text

6:8 Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people (Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ). Luke begins by characterizing Stephen’s ministry. He is described as being “full of grace and power” and performing miracles.

The fact that Luke does not describe Stephen’s involvement in the newly organized food distribution among the impoverished believers (6:1–7) should not come as a surprise. He had described the apostles (first and foremost Peter) in their role as Jesus’ witnesses who proclaim the significance of his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation. Their role in the charitable ministries to believers in need was mentioned only in summary statements (2:44–45; 4:32–37) and in a brief comment about the apostles’ feet, at which Ananias and Sapphira deposited their hypocritically reduced proceeds from their sale (5:2). The fact that they took responsibility for the neglect of the widows (6:2) suggests that they had been involved in the food distribution program, which they now restructure. It is natural that the Seven focus not only on the distribution of food but on other ministry opportunities that arise. Both the proclamation of the gospel and the serving at tables is designated as “ministry” or “service” (διακονία).

In v. 3 all Seven are believers full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom; in v. 5 Stephen was described as being full of faith and the Holy Spirit; here Stephen is described as full of grace and power. These terms describe Stephen as a mature believer who continues to experience the transforming and empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. “Grace” (χάρις) is God’s enabling care and help as a gift of the Holy Spirit (see 4:33). “Power” (δύναμις) is the result of the presence of God’s Spirit (see 1:8) and corresponds to “faith” (πίστις) in v. 5—both “power” and “faith” cause the miracles to happen (v. 8).

Luke does not specify which “great wonders and signs” happen in Stephen’s ministry. As he bears the responsibility for ministering to believers who are in need of food and clothing, he meets people who are ill and who suffer from demonic oppression. Taking food to believers would naturally involve him in conversations about any difficulties and problems the believers have, conversations in which mature believers inevitably explain and confirm the revelation of God in Jesus, the significance of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior, and the reality of the Holy Spirit as the transforming power of God bestowed by Jesus on those who believe. As Stephen meets people who suffer from illnesses and other afflictions, many are miraculously cured. The miracles that happen in Stephen’s ministry are characteristic of the ministry of the Twelve (2:43; 5:12); they are God’s answer to the prayers of the believers (4:30).

6:9 Then some members of the synagogue of freedmen, as it was called, of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, came forward to debate with Stephen (ἀνέστησαν δέ τινες τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης Λιβερτίνων καὶ Κυρηναίων καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέων καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ Ἀσίας συζητοῦντες τῷ Στεφάνῳ). The ministry of Stephen provokes opposition from diaspora Jews living in Jerusalem. “Some” of the opponents are active in the local synagogues. The Greek syntax is not sufficiently clear to allow a decision regarding the number of synagogues listed here. Luke could refer to one “Synagogue of Freedmen” attended by diaspora Jews from different regions of the Mediterranean world. If the term freedmen is to be explained by two clauses, we have two synagogues (one attended by Cyrenian and Alexandrian Jews, the other by Cilician and Asian Jews).3 If the freedmen, the Cyrenian Jews, and the Alexandrian Jews attend different synagogues, while the Jews from Cilicia and Asia gather in one synagogue, we have a total of four synagogues. If each group met in a different synagogue, we have five.4 Certainty cannot be achieved. It should be noted that Paul speaks of “synagogues” (plural) in Jerusalem (24:12).

The existence of a synagogue in Jerusalem has been confirmed by the discovery of the Theodotos inscription, which honors a certain “Theodotos, son of Vettenos, priest and archisynagōgos, son of an archisynagōgos, grandson of an archisynagōgos,” who built the synagogue “for reading the Law and teaching the commandments, and the guest chamber, the rooms, the water installations as an inn for those in need from foreign lands, which his fathers founded together with the elders and Simonides.”7 Since Vettenos is a Latin name, this family probably returned from Rome to live in Jerusalem. It is thus possible, though not certain, that Theodotos was the president of the “synagogue of the freedmen” mentioned by Luke.

The “freedmen” (Λιβερτίνοι, which is a Greek transliteration of Lat. libertini) were Jews who had been manumitted as slaves by their owners or were the descendants of emancipated Jewish slaves. Philo mentions Jews who lived in Rome, most of whom had been taken as captives to Italy (e.g., after Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BC) and who continued to live in Rome after their emancipation. Tacitus mentions 4,000 libertini who became Jewish proselytes.8 Some of these Roman Jews had returned to live in Jerusalem.

Other diaspora Jews who worshiped in the local synagogues were Cyrenians, i.e., Jews who came from the region of the Cyrenaica in northern Africa,9 and Alexandrians, i.e., Jews from Alexandria in Egypt. Of perhaps 500,000 people living in Alexandria, it is estimated that as many as 100,000 were Jews.10 A certain Simon of Cyrene, who evidently lived in Jerusalem, is mentioned in connection with Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt 27:32/Mark 15:21/Luke 23:26); it is a plausible assumption that he and his family became members of the Christian community. Cyrenian Jews who had come to faith in Jesus were among the believers who brought the gospel to Antioch (11:20; 13:1). The Christian teacher Apollos came from Alexandria (18:24).

Other diaspora Jews living in Jerusalem came from Cilicia in southeastern Asia Minor, most of which was part of the province of Syria since the end of the first century, and from the province of Asia in western Asia Minor, a senatorial province governed by a proconsul, with its capital in Ephesus. Paul was a diaspora Jew from Tarsus; it is more than likely that he would have had contact with a synagogue in Jerusalem in which Jews from his home region were meeting. Paul later engaged in missionary work in Cilicia and in Asia Minor.

Stephen continued to visit the synagogues in which the diaspora Jews were meeting in Jerusalem (Luke provides no information on Stephen’s regional origins). During such visits he would have eagerly spoken about his faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah who was crucified, raised from the dead, and exalted to God’s right hand as Israel’s Savior. Since diaspora Jews retiring in Jerusalem were undoubtedly devoted to the city and to its temple, it is plausible that the increasing number of diaspora Jews who came to faith in Jesus—the “Hellenists” mentioned in 6:1—provoked a strong reaction against the Christian leaders who were particularly active among the Greek-speaking Jewish community in Jerusalem. They would have felt that the ancestral faith that brought them back to the center of the Jewish commonwealth was betrayed by those who believed that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah and Savior.

Thus diaspora Jews took the initiative to “debate” with Stephen. The active participle of the verb “debate” (συζητοῦντες) indicates that these debates continued over a period of time, which suggests that these were (initially) not heated discussions but debates in which the pros and cons of the significance of Jesus for the Jewish people were considered.

6:10 They could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke (καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀντιστῆναι τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι ᾧ ἐλάλει). As Stephen debated with the diaspora Jews with “wisdom” (σοφία) and the power of the Spirit, the Jews were unable to “withstand” (ἀντιστῆναι) his explanation of the gospel. As they, presumably, sought to disprove the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is Israel’s Messiah and Savior, Stephen’s arguments proved superior.

This does not mean that they were won over for faith in Jesus. Rather, they were silenced by his presentation. If Stephen was among the people who had seen the risen Jesus and thus spoke of his encounter with Jesus after the resurrection, they were unable to dispute his eyewitness testimony. Similarly, if he recounted the testimony of Jesus’ resurrection offered by the Twelve and other believers who had seen the risen Jesus, they would not be able to discredit these witnesses, who were neither gullible nor charlatans. He may have pointed as well to the miracles that were happening in his ministry and in the ministry of other believers as evidence for the power of Jesus, who had been exalted to the right hand of God.

As Stephen engaged these diaspora Jews in debate, he experienced the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in Luke 21:15 to give to his disciples “words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.” Stephen also experienced the answer to the prayers of the believers in Acts 4:29–30, who asked God for boldness to proclaim his word.

6:11 So they instigated some men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God” (τότε ὑπέβαλον ἄνδρας λέγοντας ὅτι ἀκηκόαμεν αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ῥήματα βλάσφημα εἰς Μωϋσῆν καὶ τὸν θεόν). These diaspora Jews did not want to admit defeat; they believed that the beliefs of Stephen were heretical and that he needed to be eliminated. In Israel, blasphemy deserved the most severe punishment. The perfect of the finite verb “heard” (ἀκηκόαμεν) and the present tense of the participle “speak” (λαλοῦντος) indicate that the diaspora Jews claimed to have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words constantly, over a longer period of time. They start a whisper campaign11 in the synagogues of Jerusalem, accusing Stephen of uttering words of blasphemy “against Moses and against God.” Josephus says of the Essenes that “after God they hold most in awe the name of their lawgiver, and any blasphemer of whom is punished with death” (J.W. 2.145).

The term “blasphemy” (βλάσφημα) involves “defaming, denigrating, demeaning” and is linked here not with actions but with verbal speech (ῥήματα). According to Lev 24:11–16, blasphemy against “the name of the LORD” was punished by death through stoning, while blasphemy against Moses could be linked with Exod 22:28, which prohibits “curs[ing] the ruler of your people.” The term “blasphemy” here is used not in the later “strict” sense of the word in rabbinic law—pronouncing the tetragrammaton YHWH, the name of God (m. Sanh. 7:5)—but in a more general sense of defaming Moses and God. The sequence of the two terms suggests that their main focus was the Mosaic law, which they saw denigrated in Stephen’s teaching. In v. 13 the charges are related to Stephen’s “speaking words against this holy place and against the law,” i.e., against the temple and the Mosaic law.

Are these accusations trumped-up charges that have no basis in what Stephen actually said?12 It has been argued that Stephen was eventually convicted not because of blaspheming by speaking against the temple and the law but because he claimed to see “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (7:56), associating Jesus with God’s sovereignty over the world and thus attributing divine status to Jesus.13 Similarly, in Jesus’ trial it was not the charges that Jesus said that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days14 that prompted the death sentence but Jesus’ claim to participate in God’s rule over the world.15 However, the charges that Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and of his involvement in replacing the temple with a temple of heavenly origin were not false; Jesus evidently did say something to that effect,16 although he never claimed that he himself would plot to destroy the temple. The charges, even though correct, could not be proven under separate cross-examination of the witnesses and were thus not admissible.

The charges against Stephen, focused as they are on the temple and the law, are similar to those brought against Jesus. If Stephen shared Peter’s conviction that “salvation can be found in no one else, because there is no other name in the whole world given to human beings through which we are to be saved” (4:12), the consequences for the temple and the law are not difficult to see. The interface between the temple and the law are the sacrifices. The focus there was on the sin- and guilt-offerings and on the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Believing in Jesus as the only one who saves from sins implies that the sins of Israel are no longer atoned for through animal sacrifices, and that purity and holiness are no longer established by rituals prescribed by the law, but, rather, on account of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and exaltation.

While it is conceivable that believers with a diaspora background grasped the consequences of Jesus for the temple cult sooner than other believers, Luke never implies that they were more “liberal” than their Palestinian fellow believers; as regards the latter, it was the indisputable reality of the lame man who was healed and standing next to Peter and John that silenced their accusers in the interrogation of 4:5–22, which may have been a sufficient reason not to charge them with blasphemy.

Luke does not comment on the motivation of the diaspora Jews who accuse Stephen of blasphemy. If they had heard of Gamaliel’s counsel suggesting caution (5:35–39), they were not convinced that this was the proper course of action. After Stephen’s death, Saul/Paul “continued to cause harm to the church” in Jerusalem by “entering house after house,” dragging male and female believers off to prison (8:3; cf. 9:2–3; 22:5; 26:12). He seems to have been among the diaspora Jews who unsuccessfully tried to disprove Stephen’s beliefs in theological debates. Luke notes in 8:1 that he approved of Stephen’s being killed. He evidently shared the concerns of other diaspora Jews concerning the serious consequences of Stephen’s beliefs for Jewish faith and life.

Saul regarded the proclamation of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior as so utterly despicable, in view of the fact that Jesus had been convicted by the highest Jewish court and executed by crucifixion, that he became convinced that the adherents of this new movement must not be tolerated but that active measures had be taken to stop their activities. Jews who rejected the claims of the believers in Jesus evidently were convinced that faith in Jesus as Messiah and in the atoning efficacy of his death on the cross put into question the very foundations of their obedience to the law as the basis of salvation bestowed by God.

6:12 They stirred up the people as well as the elders and the scribes; they confronted him, seized him, and took him to the Sanhedrin (συνεκίνησάν τε τὸν λαὸν καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τοὺς γραμματεῖς καὶ ἐπιστάντες συνήρπασαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἤγαγον εἰς τὸ συνέδριον). After instigating informers in the local synagogues who accuse Stephen of blaspheming by speaking against the Mosaic law and thus against God, the diaspora Jews expand their campaign to eliminate Stephen. Luke describes their activities with four verbs in the aorist tense. (1) They “stirred up” (συνεκίνησαν) the people, i.e., citizens of Jerusalem who had resisted becoming believers or sympathizers of the apostles,17 perhaps more specifically the people in the synagogues in which diaspora Jews were meeting, and members of the Sanhedrin—elders (πρεσβύτεροι) and Torah experts (γραμματεῖς; see on 4:5). The verb translated as “stirred up” means “to excite” or “move” with a focus on emotions.

(2) They “confronted” him (ἐπιστάντες); i.e., they approached him, probably as he was speaking in one of the synagogues, without Stephen being aware of what they planned to do.

(3) They “seized” (συνήρπασαν) him with force; i.e., they arrested him.

(4) They “took him” (ἤγαγον) to the Sanhedrin, the highest court in the land (see on 4:5), where he was to stand trial for charges of blasphemy. This happened perhaps on the next day, which would mean that Stephen was first taken into prison (cf. 4:1–3; 5:17–18), unless a session of the Sanhedrin was organized specifically with the goal of putting Stephen on trial.

6:13 They set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking words against this holy place and against the law” (ἔστησάν τε μάρτυρας ψευδεῖς λέγοντας· ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος οὐ παύεται λαλῶν ῥήματα κατὰ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἁγίου τούτου καὶ τοῦ νόμου). As in Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, “false witnesses” (μάρτυρες ψευδεῖς)18 appear. To give false testimony is prohibited in the Decalogue (Exod 20:16; Deut 19:16–18).19 Since the charges against Stephen probably did contain some truth (see on v. 11), these witnesses are “false” because they could not get their testimony to agree under cross-examination. Or, from Luke’s perspective they are “false witnesses” because they spoke against God’s spokesman.20 The reference to Stephen as “this man” is derogatory. The formulation he “never stops” (οὐ παύεται, present tense) indicates that Stephen had expressed his convictions for a sustained period of time.

The charges of v. 11 are here reformulated in terms of speaking “against this holy place and against the law.” The expression “this holy place” refers to the temple in Jerusalem, which represented God’s presence in Israel. The “law” stands for “Moses” in v. 11.21 The interface between the Mosaic law, the temple, and God is the presence of the holy God among the people of Israel, which is possible only if Israel’s sins are atoned for regularly and consistently. If the believers in Jesus teach that salvation is found, for everyone, in Jesus and in Jesus alone, this view can easily be presented as blasphemy against the Most Holy Place, where the sins of the people of Israel had been atoned for since the days of Moses; as blasphemy against the Mosaic law, which stipulated that sins were forgiven and access to God restored through sacrifices and other ritual procedures such as those carried out on the Day of Atonement; and as blasphemy against God, who had given the law and who was present in the temple cult.

Some point to Luke’s positive portrayal of the temple in 2:46; 3:1; 5:12, 20–21, 42, disputing that Stephen argues against the temple itself.22 A discussion of the passages in Acts 7 will have to wait; suffice it to say at this point that Stephen concludes his argument in 7:49–50 by quoting Isa 66:1–2. In the context of Isaiah 66, the prophet confronted Israel with the danger of restricting the presence of God to the temple and in taking the offering of sacrifices as Yahweh’s only or final demand of his people. This attitude turned the temple into an idol.23 Isaiah also censured Israel for not paying attention to the word of God (Isa 66:2, 4–5; cf. 65:12; 58:1–12). Similarly Stephen accuses his audience of having uncircumcised ears and opposing what the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets. “Hence Stephen’s audience are guilty of the same charge as the wicked in Isaiah’s day. They too have failed to listen to God’s word, spoken in their time concerning Jesus, the promised prophet like Moses.”24

6:14 “For we have heard him say, ‘Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us’ ” (ἀκηκόαμεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος οὗτος καταλύσει τὸν τόπον τοῦτον καὶ ἀλλάξει τὰ ἔθη ἃ παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν Μωϋσῆς). Luke explains the charges of v. 13 with a direct quotation. The witnesses claim to have heard Stephen say that Jesus will destroy the temple and change the Mosaic law.

The first part of the charge was used in Jesus’ trial (Matt 26:60–61/Mark 14:57–58). Jesus had prophesied the destruction of the temple (Matt 24:1–2/Mark 13:1–2/Luke 21:5–6); according to John 2:19 Jesus challenged the Jews, who asked for a sign, that if the temple were destroyed, he would rebuild it in three days, a statement John explains by saying that the “temple … was his body,” which would be raised from the dead (John 2:21–22). Nothing is said in this charge that Jesus himself wanted to destroy or replace the temple.

The second part of the statement charges Stephen of announcing changes in the law as a result of Jesus’ life and significance. He is not charged of wanting to abolish the law as such but of changing the customs that the law stipulated for Israel. The most thoroughgoing change in the Mosaic law is found in Jesus’ teaching about food: “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15; cf. 7:19; cf. Matt 15:17–20). The statement formulates a basic principle that abrogates the concept of ritual defilement through unclean food, changing the food laws in Lev 11 and 17. The food laws were of fundamental importance, since “together with the rite of circumcision and their observance of the Sabbath, the literal adherence to these dietary laws served to mark out the Jews as the distinctive people of God, and to separate them socially from other people.”25 Jesus’ behavior on the Sabbath and his statements about the Sabbath26 might have been relevant as well.

For Jesus (and for the early Christians), such changes did not constitute an abolishment of the law but its fulfillment (Matt 5:17). Luke does not tell his readers what Stephen specifically taught regarding Jesus’ statements about the temple and the law or what Stephen himself taught. It is plausible, however, to assume that Stephen spoke about the consequences of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and exaltation for the validity of the law in terms of the sacrificial cult, the atonement for sin, and the establishment and maintenance of holiness (see on v. 11). An implied charge may relate to Stephen’s being associated with a condemned deceiver of the Jewish people who has been sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin.

6:15 And everyone who sat in the Sanhedrin stared at him, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel (καὶ ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ καθεζόμενοι ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ εἶδον τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου). As the witnesses are questioned about their claims concerning Stephen’s teaching, the members of the Sanhedrin look at him intently. Perhaps Luke indicates that the testimony of the witnesses could not be corroborated in the cross-examination, so that the outcome of the trial depends now entirely on what Stephen will say—as in Jesus’ trial, when the high priest intervenes with a direct question posed to Jesus after the testimony of the witnesses does not agree (Mark 14:59–61).

The members of the Sanhedrin see a change in the appearance of Stephen’s face. The description of Stephen’s face looking like “the face of an angel” (πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου), unique in the New Testament, emphasizes the presence of God in Stephen’s witness.27 It implies that Stephen is filled with God’s Holy Spirit (cf. 4:8) and that his speech (7:2–53) should be regarded as that of an authoritative witness of God inspired by the Spirit.

7:1 Then the High Priest asked, “Is this so?” (εἶπεν δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς· εἰ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει;). The high priest, i.e., Joseph Caiaphas (see on 4:6), intervenes in the legal proceedings. After the cross-examination of the witnesses, which was presumably inconclusive because of contradictory explanations of what Stephen actually said, he addresses Stephen directly, asking him to comment on the charge that he has uttered words of blasphemy against the temple and against the Mosaic law. Much of chapter 7 is Stephen’s response.

Theology in Application

This passage emphasizes that the gospel should be preached by mature believers as well as by the main leaders of the church. Moreover, authentic ministry is linked with faith and wisdom and may be accompanied by signs and wonders. Finally, Christians should refuse to be intimidated by threats, hostile campaigns, or legal action.

Comprehensive Ministry

Effective ministry is comprehensive ministry. Stephen’s ministry was not limited to organizing and carrying out the charitable support for impoverished believers, including the Greek-speaking widows, but included signs and wonders (v. 8), the defense of the gospel in discussions initiated by others (v. 9), and the proclamation and explanation of the message about Jesus (vv. 10–11, 13–14). In other words, his ministry resembled the ministry of the Twelve, who also preached, were involved in caring for the needy, and demonstrated their concern for the latter by restructuring the church so that food distribution could be organized more fairly and more effectively.

While specialization is unavoidable, Christian ministries need to be careful not to focus in a one-sided manner either on charitable relief work only or on preaching the gospel only. While a single person may not be able to do both in a competent fashion—e.g., the apostles—it is often possible, even necessary, to combine the two, certainly in a team context where Christians work together. It is true that relief work without an explanation of the gospel is a worthwhile venture, but it is not particularly Christian. And Christian ministries that only preach the gospel but ignore the practical needs of people are not particularly Christian either. Stephen served at tables, but he also explained the gospel.

Grace, Power, and Wisdom

Effective ministry is based on grace, power, and wisdom. Stephen’s ministry is characterized by grace and power (v. 8), and by wisdom and the presence of the Holy Spirit (v. 10). As God bestows grace on people who come to faith in Jesus, it is God’s Spirit who bestows wisdom and empowers ministry. Christians living in the West are in danger of being too thoroughly influenced by a culture that values technical skills, management strategies, and methodical planning. While expertise in these areas is not unimportant, it can easily obscure the fact that ministries, particularly mission and evangelism, are not rendered effective by techniques but by the power of God, who empowers his witnesses through his Spirit.28 Luke describes the reason for Stephen’s powerful ministry with reference to God’s grace and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit.

While signs and wonders may and do accompany Christian ministry, they are not the explanation for the effectiveness of Stephen’s ministry. The diaspora Jews were apparently aware of the miracles performed by Stephen; they were even more impressed by “the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” (v. 10). Signs and wonders cannot be “used” as a strategic or tactical means of making ministry effective. By definition they are divine interventions in history, which cannot be controlled and must not be manipulated by human beings. At the same time, the secular worldview of Western culture must not be allowed to minimize or doubt God’s ability and gracious willingness to miraculously heal and help believers in need.

Facing Opposition and Persecution

The church may repeatedly face opposition and persecution. Peter and John had been arrested and interrogated by the Sanhedrin earlier (4:1–22), as were all the apostles together (5:17–42). Stephen’s arrest and interrogation is the third incident of determined opposition against the church. Stephen will lose his life, and there will be more opposition to come. Christians should not be surprised if their opponents use all means possible, from intimidation and smear campaigns to legal action. Christian preachers must refuse to be cowed by opposition. Sometimes missionaries and evangelists may have to leave a city or a region if there is danger for life and limb. Sometimes evasive measures are not possible.

Stephen, with persistence and courage, explained the gospel in the synagogues of the diaspora Jews and then before the Sanhedrin, experiencing the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that times of opposition, persecution, and suffering provide new opportunities for witness (Luke 21:13), and of the promise that he will be present and give his witnesses words and wisdom as they testify to the truth of God’s word (Luke 21:15). The fact that the trial of Stephen shares many similarities with that of Jesus expresses the truth that Jesus’ witnesses who suffer on account of their proclamation of the gospel are particularly close to Jesus.