[Fri, 31 May] Acts 6:8-7:53 (1632 words; 2/10)

Stephen, one of the seven chosen by the community, is dragged before the Sanhedrin by a diaspora synagogue (i.e. a synagogue composed of diaspora Jews who had moved to Israel). The details here are just like Jesus' trial, with the invention of (semi) false charges and stirring up the crowds and leaders. Even one of the charges is the same (Mk 14:55-58; although not mentioned in the Gospel trials, no doubt they also accused Jesus of trying to change or nullify the law, given how they had clashed over the Sabbath and other matters). 

In 6:15, Luke says that "all who sat in the council looked intently at him, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel." What does this mean? Part of the answer must be that this is the equivalent of 4:8, where Peter first faces this Sanhedrin: "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them..."* But part of the answer may also be that this is something like a transfiguration experience. Moses famously had a shining face after communing with God in the cloud on Sinai, and Jesus was transfigured before three of his disciples as the presence of God descended in a cloud on the mountain. Perhaps because Stephen is ordained to be the first martyr for Jesus, he is granted this special experience as a testimony to the rulers of Israel. 

Chapter 7 is Stephen's defence, the longest speech in Acts. The two charges that he faces concern (1) Moses and the law, and (2) the temple. Because Stephen's loyalty to his ancestral faith is in question, he rehearses the classic story. On the first charge, Stephen shows that he is not questioning Moses at all; instead, he flips the charge, by showing that Moses was rejected by their fathers. But the story of Moses has a number of parallels with Joseph's before him, and Stephen points out that, before Joseph saved his family from starvation, they had first rejected him by selling him into slavery in Egypt (7:9). Moses, when he first stepped in to help his people, was rejected (v. 27). Stephen emphasises this rejection further on in his speech: 

 “It was this Moses whom they rejected when they said, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ and whom God now sent as both ruler and liberator through the angel who appeared to him in the bush." (v. 35)

Like Joseph, the rejected one becomes the saviour. Then Stephen points out that, again, it was "this Moses" who prophesied that another prophet like him would be raised up" (v. 37 cf. 3:22-23). Indeed, it was he who performed signs and wonders, who parted the Red Sea, who led Israel in the wilderness forty years, who received the "living oracles" on Mt Sinai. But, for all this, 

"Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make gods for us who will lead the way for us; as for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’" (vv. 39-40). 

They had God; they wanted a calf. God had sent them a liberator and leader; they wanted the calf. God had brought them out to give them the land promised to their fathers; they wanted to go back to Egypt.

So is it really Stephen who speaks against Moses? Has it not always been their fathers who have rejected those sent to them, disobeyed, ignored, turned away and killed the prophets sent to turn them back? 

The other charge levelled at Stephen was that he spoke against the temple. This one is basically correct. But Stephen shows what he means. The Jews had come to believe by this time that the land of Israel was sacred, and it was only here that God revealed himself. Stephen contradicts this with scripture. He points out that God has been revealing himself and blessing his people all over the world. They did not need to come to Judea and to a stone structure to find God. Instead, he went out into the world and found them. 

First, he finds Abraham in Mesopotamia. There he tells him to move to a land that he will show him. Then he speaks to Abraham again in Haran, moving him on. Abraham never himself received this promised land, and in fact God revealed to him that even his descendants for a long time would not get it either. But it would happen. Abraham had God by faith: he believed in God, and God spoke to him. Or, better, God spoke to him, and Abraham believed him. No temple or special land required. 

Likewise, God was with Joseph in Egypt and prospered him so he would save his family. Later, Moses had a sense of divine mission to rescue his people long before the burning bush (v. 25). He fled to Midian, and forty years later in the wilderness of Sinai, God spoke to him in the burning bush, and revealed his identity, his name. Indeed, he told Moses to take off his sandals, because the ground where he stood was holy. 

God, through Moses, brings Israel out of Egypt to meet him at Sinai. There they have everything. The oracles, the angel of the Lord, Moses, the tabernacle. Yet they are not in the promised land, and they do not have a temple. They are blessed to the hilt already, without a temple! But this does not stop their idolatry.

Then, after they enter the land with Joshua, the tabernacle is put somewhere. It is David, who, having captured Jerusalem and built himself a palace, now wishes to do the same for God. But God is the house builder. He will build a house for David, not the other way round. Solomon is allowed to build the house, but the prophet points out the obvious (which even Solomon recognised at the time): if the whole world is the footstool of God, who will build a house for him?

Stephen's argument, proven from scripture, shows that God has never needed a land or a temple to reveal himself and bless Israel. Yet these things, especially the temple, have come to mean something much more than originally intended. "You think too much of them", would be a mild way of summarising his point. 

There is nothing mild about what Stephen actually says next. He blasts not his only accusers but his judges, some of whom (e.g. Caiaphas) condemned Jesus. Using classic language that God himself used of Israel, he designates them "stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears..." Indeed, they are "forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do." (v. 51). They have tried to condemn Stephen for these things, but Stephen speaks by the Holy Spirit, and it was they who rejected and murdered the Righteous One. When he asks, in v. 52, which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute and kill, he must know that he himself will be added to the list, as final proof of his words. Verse 53 rings out the conclusion: 

"You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it." 

The law was never about respecting the temple: it was about listening to God! If they had done that, they would never have rejected those sent to them, least of all the Righteous One.

Stephen's speech, which has showed that God reveals himself outside of Israel and the temple, will first of all bring on his death, but it will also fittingly inaugurate the Gentile mission. The revelation of God will now goes out from Judea to Samaria and then to the surrounding nations and beyond

 

*[Here is a note on being filled with the Spirit. It's not necessary for today's reading, but may be helpful for understanding the different ways Luke talks about it]. 

As we noted in an earlier post, this fulfils Jesus' promise that no preparation is necessary for defence at a trial, for the Holy Spirit will give what is to be said. Note that this promise regards trials. It is not given for evangelism in general, nor preaching, etc. Preparation (prayer, study, reflection) is still required for these other activities. This does not mean that we don't need the Holy Spirit for these things; only that Jesus specifically directed his followers not to worry about the inevitable times when they would be on trial for their testimony, because the Holy Spirit would be with them in an extra way--hence the phrase "filled with the Holy Spirit". The seven leaders had to be "full of the Spirit and wisdom" (6:3), meaning that they were generally outstanding, and Stephen is highlighted as being a man "full of faith and the Holy Spirit" even amongst the seven (6:5), and that is even before they are ordained by the apostles (6:6 cf. 13:2-3). Yet Stephen will still be "filled with the Holy Spirit" (7:55) before his death, where he is granted a vision of the heavenly throne and the glory of God, with Jesus stood at his right hand. The point of all this is that being full of the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit can mean different things depending on the context. Sometimes it describes a special experience (e.g. 2:4; 4:31; 8:17; 10:44-46 cf. 11:15; 19:6-7); sometimes it describes a certain quality of character or maturity (e.g. Stephen), and sometimes it describes a momentary annointing for a specific task, whether giving defence at a trial or prophecy/healing/judgement (e.g. 13:9-11 cf. 3:4 where the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, but both apostles "looked intently" before doing something miraculous).