Acts 6:8-11 Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer
Word Set to Music
Silence

Acts 6.8-11
March 13th 2016
Okay we left off with the Apostles laying hands on the Seven men elected to serve as deacons.

We are now about to be introduced to the acts of Stephanos, which are short but quite amazing, and then once Stephanos has been put to death, we will be introduced to another New Testament character by the name of Saul.

This is part of the genius of Luke as a writer of history. He ended his gospel account, picked up the Acts where he left off in his Gospel, took us through the falling of the Holy Spirit, the conversion of thousands, the calling of Stephan and ten others, and this will lead us to the person of Saul, who will become Paul, and will take the message of the Good News from the hands of Jewish leaders and converts to the Gentile world.

So let’s read beginning at verse 8.

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.

Alright back to verse 8.

8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Up to this point and excepting the death of Jesus the opposition to “Christianity” was threats, imprisonment and beatings.

But Stephen took things to a new level – death by stoning.

Authorities often respond depending on levels of rebellion and it seems that they were willing to abide with the apostles of Jesus preach and teaching but when they began to see acolytes or devotees standing and speaking with power the rebellion had reached a point where they believed drastic measures were needed.

We have just left off reading that the Apostles asked the people to select seven men to wait on tables for the distribution of Alms to the widows and yet something sparked alive in one of the seven, called Stephan, because Luke doesn’t give us a report of the job he did in waiting on the tables that he was selected to do but instead says:

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Was he elected of the people to do great wonders and miracles? Doesn’t seem to have been. Was he appointed or set apart by the Apostles to do great wonders and miracles?

Don’t think so. This was the call upon the apostles lives to perform. And yet what appears to be a natural outflow of the people calling them and the apostles appointing Him was he “sprouted” so to speak, in power.

There are a few things to consider about this occurring.

First of all, I would suggest that this is an evidence that God is in charge (by and through His Holy Spirit) and where the people elected and the apostle set Stephen apart to do a certain job (which I’m sure he did and did well) God was not going to limit Stephens effectiveness or influence to waiting tables.

He was going to use him as HE saw fit. Endemic to organizations of Man is the practice to keep people in their place based on what they were called to do.

So when a person has been appointed to take out the trash in the church but is lead to teach others about grace there can be a tendency to appeal to religious authority (especially of the trash man speaks contrary to the Senior Pastors views on grace) for someone to remind the trash man that that is his assignment and that is what he should limit his activities to.

The story of Stephen tells us otherwise. It shows that while he was chosen and set apart to serve tables he did much much more – as led by God – and this was actually his real purpose.

And from this maybe we ought to see ourselves in the same light. No matter what we are doing organizationally or in our occupations, or whatever, that God will use us in very different ways – if we let him.

Here Luke describes Stephan as a man “full of faith,” “and power,” which refers to the power to work “wonders and miracles” among the people.

And here we see the second specific instance in scripture where a NON-APOSTLE acting and exercised the very same power of the chose twelve.

When was the first time?

Back in Mark 9:38 the apostles were with Jesus and we read:

38 John said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, “Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.”

Isn’t that wild? Someone – we have no idea who it was, was walking around and USING JESUS name was casting out devils from people.

John, responding to a need in his flesh to control such things, reeling it in, as it were, thought that the guy should be stopped. But what did Jesus say? Something SO liberating and free! He said

“Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.”

Every now and again we have people write and describe some great miracle or wonder that has happened to them or a family member at the hands of a Catholic priest or a Mormon Elder.

How can you explain this?

The same way Jesus explained it.

“Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.”

Just because the institutions that people belong to can be limiting, even evil, does NOT mean that the people associated with it are.

Leave them alone – forbid them not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is . . . on our part.”

It’s such a lesson to all of us who have a tendency to want to make sure that measures of control are placed upon people who claim Christ.

The other thing to consider about the life of Stephan is that we can clearly see that the power and authority to do wonders and miracles was not relegated only to the Apostles.

So while they did do them, as ambassadors for Jesus, others could too. Remember, the Apostles call was to bear witness of Jesus resurrection. The miracles were there as an attestation that they were of God.

But this attestation was NOT limited to the chosen apostles. Regular old non-apostles, full of faith and the Holy Spirit were in just as good of a position to do wonders as they were.

A final note. Many believers today use the fact that Stephen, a non-apostle, was doing miracles as evidence that all Christians today ought to be doing the same.

Quickly, I am not against ANYONE ANYWHERE doing a miracle in Jesus name.

(beat)

Isn’t that a funny thing to have to even say, “I’m not against you doing miracles.” In other words if a person is lead to do a miracle then have at it – with them I will glorify God.

But to place a burden upon each other that says we “should be” performing miracles today – after all, look at Stephan, is to deny both the power lying in God to do the miracles and the context of their times.

Every day miracles are performed in the Christian body today – every single day. They occur whenever someone forgives another of a sin against them. They occur every time generosity of time, longsuffering, patience, possessions are extended. They occur whenever a heart converts to Jesus.

Just to put such stories in a modern contextual application. Okay, verse 9.

9 Then (meaning in the face of Stephan evidencing power and miracles) there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

Remember that by this time Jews had been scattered all over the place and so they also had to have established a synagogue wherever they had settled.

Because of the Great Feasts held in Jerusalem it seems that Jews from the
Synagogue of the Libertines
Cyrenians
Alexandrians
And those of Cilicia and of Asia

Started disputing with Stephen.

The Greek is sood-zeh-the-o and it could mean they were just discussing things or they were debating. It does not means that they started off in a heated exchange by in all probability it wound up being an argument.

And from the charges that will be laid at the feet of Stephan it seems he was laying down some pretty heavy stuff upon them.

There is something really interesting about all the places that Luke lists here as having representatives. Let’s quickly hit on them.

“Of the synagogue of the Libertines.”

There have been some difference of opinion about who these Jews were.

First the word is Latin, and means, properly, a freedman, a man who had been a slave and was set at liberty.

This could be assigned to a whole bunch of different groups of Jews who fit the description.

But some suggest that this refers to Jews who actually came from a specific place with the same name. One church father wrote:

“Victor, bishop of the Catholic church at Libertina, says unity is there,” and from this we can see that its possible that, like all the other names of places listed here, the synagogue of the Libertines was no different.

The synagogue of the Cyrenians was in Africa and Alexandria was in Egypt (which is also in Africa) but was actually founded by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. 332 but was by this time populated with Greeks and Jews.

Cilicia, was a province of Asia Minor, on the sea-coast, at the north of Cyprus. Now here’s in interesting thing. The capital of Cilicia was a place called Tarsus, the home of a Pharisaical Jew named Saul of Tarsis.

In all probability this Saul was part of the synagogue of that area and so it very well could that the Jew from Cilicia that was debating with Stephen here was none other than Saul (who would become Paul) and who would redirect and altar the complexion of Christianity for ever.

Maybe it was Stephen and his articulation of the scripture and power and might of the Spirit that took seeds of Christian truth and planted them deep in the heart of Saul – right here at this time!

Pretty interesting.

And Luke adds also Jews from Asia, verse 10

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

First of all we can see that Stephan was outnumbered. And if Saul was on the opposing side we can see that Stephanos was one powerful dude because Paul is known to be one of the greatest minds of Ancient Scripture.

Where the King James says that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke,”

It seems to mean that they could not answer his queries nor could they respond effectively in defense of their positions.

And we have a choice to make – where it reads:

“they were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke,”

The Greek for spirit used here is pneuma and it can of course mean the Holy Spirit but it can also mean the literal currents of air, breath, or breeze by which he spoke.

It can mean the soul of a person, the mind, the mental disposition, and it can refer to an angel, demon, or be divine referring to God, Christ’s spirit, or the Holy Spirit.

Many translations take the liberty of adding Holy to the term but haggias is NOT in the manuscript so this is unfair.

I point this out because it could be that they could not resist the zeal or zest or personality of Stephan OR it could mean the Holy Spirit who lead him.

The problem is Holy is not used to we do NOT know. Of course we could say that it was certainly the Holy Spirit and this I am not denying. What I am wondering about is whether this is what Luke was trying to say here or if he was actually telling us that Stephan’s zeal was indomitable.

Don’t definitively know so it’s up to you to decide how you see it.

That is, they were not able to answer his arguments.

So what did they do? (verse 11)

11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.

Ultimately to “suborned someone” means to get them to lie, to perjure themselves.

But the Greek term here is HUPPO-BALLO with HUPPO meaning “under” and ballow meaning, “throw in or toss.”

So the best way to understand what they did against Steven was they did not deal directly with him – they couldn’t – they weren’t capable.

So they not only got men to bear false witness against him they introduced these witnesses against him by throwing in with stealth these false witnesses.

To huppoballo someone cunning and treachery and stealth and conniving has to be present.

I admit to an ability to huppoballo people though I try very hard to avoid it for two simple reasons:

First, it is a characteristic I appreciate least in people personally, and secondly, it is a characteristic that seems to thrive in the darkest of forces.

I am able to justify my appealing to huppoballo when I think I can save people pain and anguish But in reality I want to save people from pain and anguist so I can ultimately save myself from pain and anguish – so we appeal to “huppoballo” we create a false story by throwing thing in or under the radar. It done not by declaring an open falsehood but by perverting the facts of a story.

In the case of Stephen it seems they tweaked his doctrines and teachings, which is the best way to “suborn,” take a whole bunch of the truth and twist it so it appears very similar to the truth but is twisted enough to muddy the waters.

In my junior year of high school my dad let me borrow his new truck for the night to attend a school dance but a group of us decided to road race through town in our fathers cars.

All was going along really well until I came to a stop light and did what you do at stop lights – stopped – but the kid behind me was going to fast unable to stop plowed – and I mean plowed – into the back of the truck.

The kid was terrified – not by the accident but by the fact that his father was an abusive military man who, according to others there, would have thrashed him physically for this mishap.

The kid begged me to not report this incident and promised me that he would pay for the damages. I agreed and was left with the job of explaining to my Dad what happened to his truck.

So I “huppoballoed” a fantastic story, full of details of being in the dance shakin my booty like no other when a kid came in screaming that my Dad’s truck just got slammed into by some kids from another school.

Lowriders, is how I described them.

Little did I know that my Dad fancied himself an amateur detective and I found myself most of the next day go with him to the “supposed scene of the crime” and explain in detail where the truck was parked, the time I put it there, when I came out, who I was with, the direction we came from, the lowrider car, its color, who saw it happen . . . and on and freaking on.

I mean the dude had a tape measure, pencil and note book and was on it!

I don’t know how many of you have experienced telling a lie and then driving around the city all freaking day with your Dad while he tried to spot the hit and run lowriders in their purple Chevy Impala.
In Huntington Beach no less.

Huppoballo – While the hit and run story is humorous my actions fell under the auspices of confusing the facts with fiction.

According to verse 11 the suborned men said, “We have heard him (Stephan) speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.”

As you know, according to the law this huppoballo was no laughing matter as blasphemy was punishable by death.

By stoning, no less.

When they heard the blasphemy we are not told. What we do know is it was blasphemy against Moses AND against God.

Of course Moses was regarded with profound reverence and the laws he introduced were seen as unchangeable.

There are people today – non-Jews, even Christians – who believe the law of Moses is still in place, this is how profound the influence of his laws was among the Jews.

To suggest that there was ANY lawgiver greater than him or to suggest that his laws were just types and shadows of the real things would certainly be regarding as blasphemous.

I doubt very much that Stephen was blasphemous or rude toward the Law of Moses.

But to people who cannot or will not hear ANYTHING contrary to what they believe EVERYTHING sounds blasphemous, and this is probably the case here.

In addition to Moses they also said that Stephan had “blasphemed against God.”

God was justly regarded by the Jews as the Giver of their law, and the Author of all of their ways. But the Jews, either willfully or involuntarily, were unaware that the Law served a specific purpose to them and was not a concrete demand for them to remain under forever and ever.

Stephen and Philip and the five thousand plus converts from Judaism were aware of this to some degree or another, but many were not – and quite frankly, MANY even today do not understand the place and purpose of the Law of Moses.

First of all, understand that the Law of Moses was to the Nation of Israel and no other.

When Christian’s read the ten Commandments or other elements of the Jewish law and try to apply it to themselves they err greatly in judgment.

It was given to them and unless someone converts to Judaism it has no bearing on them.

Secondly, the Law had a purpose. Paul puts it this way in Galatians 3 beginning at verse 23

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up (or kept from) the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

How was the Law a schoolmaster to the Jews?

Pretend there is a school master standing above you. He holds a long cane and snaps it in the air above your head everytime you are deficient in keeping God’s rules.

The Law (or the schoolmaster) hung over them and made sure that they were in line, corrected them when they were out of line, and showed them that they were constantly, as a people, out of harmony with its demands.

So much so they were constantly offering up the blood of animals to make up for failing to obey the schoolmaster.

In other words under it there was little peace, little rest, and constant rules to worry about breaking – along with the consequences for breaking those rules.

So the law was a burden and it put people in chains of bondage by placing burdens on their backs – burdens REMEMBER that they could not bear.

Hence the need of a savior.

In the book of Acts, the apostles found themselves tempted to reintroduce elements of the Old Testament Law upon the believers in Christ, (who had fulfilled the law on our behalf).

But Peter rose up and said something important. He said in Acts 15:10:

“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

Notice that Peter says that to take the rules and rituals and other elements of the Law and to place them on the back of believers in Christ would be like placing “a yoke upon their neck . . . a yoke,” he states, “that neither their fathers nor the
apostles themselves were able to bear!”

Have you ever had a religion place a yoke or a burden on your back?

I don’t care if it is one thing or many, have you ever experienced this? Well it’s the opposite of what God wants for us and we know this because He sent His only begotten Son to break the chains, and break the yoke and open the PRISON doors.

Laws demand obedience and compliance and therefore require effort or labor – earning and yearning and pulling and striving.

To what end? Ostensibly to make God love us more because He is pleased with us but scripture says what He seeks and what pleases Him is our faith on the one who fulfilled the Law.

This was certainly at least part of Stephan’s message.

Why would Stephan share this message? Because he knew that those who were standing upon the law for their justification before God were headed for trouble – or better put, sheol – because the Law cannot, will not justify anyone before God.

Suppose a parent sits a child down at the beginning of the year and says:

“The only single solitary expectation I have for you this year – my law for you – is I want you to make your bed before you leave the house – no matter what,” and the child does it every day but one, was the child obedient to the Law of the parents?

No. The child broke their only law even though he broke it only once. Therefore the child would be deemed a lawbreaker.

He or she failed to obey.

Obedience to the Law is sort of like virginity, pregnancy, and cancer – you either are pregnant or you are not. You either are a virgin or you are not. You either have cancer or you don’t.

So it is with the Law – you either are obedient to it or you are not.

If people are saved by obedience to something (and NOT by faith in someone who was obedient to that thing in their place) then their salvation is predicated on their ability to actually obey the requirements completely.

In the case of our child and the rule to make his bed we were talking about only one rule.

But suppose the child was given seven rules by the parents:

1 We want you to make your bed every day without fail.
2 We want you to eat an apple a day.
3 We want you to do your homework every day that you have it.
4 We command you to brush thy teeth twice daily
5 We command you to never eat a Milky Way.

Again, let’s say the child did EVERYTHING they asked perfectly but in the last day of the year ate a single Milky Way that child would be guilty of breaking the whole law and not just the last rule.

Why?

Could the parent say that junior obeyed their commands? No they could not. Therefore Junior would be guilty of breaking the law of his parents.

The problem is none of us – nobody –
has ever, ever, ever been obedient to the Law of God.

To really bring the matter home, very few human beings can actually get through a
single day without disobeying God’s perfect law in one way or another.

So scripture clearly points out that we cannot fool ourselves, no matter who you are, we have all been disobedient to God.

James says it well in James 2:10

“For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

I didn’t say this, God did.

In other words if you go throughout your whole life and keep all of God’s Law
(which would be impossible) and you break one point of it, God says – God says – God says you would be guilty of breaking all of His laws!

Why would God say this?

Because He wants you to understand that you CANNOT save yourself by
obedience to any set of laws or ordinances of the Gospel.

Stephen wanted the Jews from Libertina, and from Cyrenians, and Alexandria, and of Cilicia and of Asia to understand this.

That the blood of animal sacrifice could not save them but the blood of Jesus of Nazaeth could – He was the offering for sin and it would be by faith on HIM that they would be justified before God, not this Law of Moses.

Another thing Stephen understood was the Law was fulfilled by Jesus – the Messiah with whom his audience remained unfamiliar.

He bore the yoke of the law for them! He bore the burden not only of their sin against it but reconciled them to God, something that the Law nor the temple could do! Stephen knew this.

Paul says it this way in 2nd Corinthians 5:21

“For God hath made Jesus to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

And listen to Romans 5:9!

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, (this is speaking of Adam, his fall, and original sin) so by the obedience of one (this speaks of Jesus alone) shall many be made righteous.”

Because Jesus fulfilled the Law on our behalf, then shed His blood for the same, we are made righteous in the eyes of God through our FAITH on HIM and not
because we earn or obey certain laws ourselves!

And what should be the result? A new yoke.

Jesus said in Matthew 11:29 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

So Stephen knew that the Law of Moses had to be seen in new light. Paul put it this way

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.

Romans 8:3-4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the
law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Finally, an extremely dangerous effect that adding obedience to “laws and ordinances” has on people is that by attempting to actually live by the Law we actually serves to keep us in a state of sin, not away from sin.

How does it do this? By keeping us . . . guilty.

You see, if we are dead to the Law, then it has no power over us, and we are free.

Scripture, not me, makes it plain: We are dead to the Law but alive in Christ! Listen to Romans 3:20

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

If the parent never gave the kid the law to make his bed every day, the kid would
not be guilty of disobedience. But because there was a law given, sin is the only result. So the only solution is to be free from the law!

This is why the Bible says

1st Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Listen!

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

And

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Paul gives a stern warning to people who live their lives by Law after receiving Jesus as the Law of their lives, saying

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Never let a religion tell you that you must follow this rule and that rule and this
teaching and have that ordinance done –

Christ Jesus did it all for us – look to Him, be free, liberated, and cease your
disobedience which only comes by embracing Law.

This message to some degree or another worked its way into the words of Stephan.

Somehow or another he was telling these Jews that the Law was going to be lived in another way or go away all together, that there was no need for temples, or it was going away too.

What ever it was, they took it wrongly, partially, or incorrectly. And next week we will see how God used Stephan’s faith and boldness to push the faith out into the world.

Q and A
PLAY!