WELCOME
PRAYER
WORD SET TO MUSIC
PRAYER
Acts 7.51-end
May 29th 2016
Milk
Okay, we left off with Stephen quoting God who, I reference to temples made with hands stating that he is not really impressed with such things and added at verse 50:
Acts 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
At this point Stephen who has patiently been relaying the history of the Jews to his audience seems to shift into high gear and says to his accusers:
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Okay back to verse 51.
Some scholars seem to think that between verses 50 and 51 Stephen was interrupted.
They say this because there is no real reason that he would go from quoting scripture to suddenly using negative descriptions of them unprovoked and so it is believed that verse 51 is in response to them beginning to scream and resist him.
We might ask what was it that he has said that caused them to suddenly go into an uproar?
I believe that we have a backstory here that provides us our answer.
In verse 40 Stephen pointed out that while Moses was in the mount their fathers asked Aaron to make them an idol. And Aaron did. With what?
His hands.
And their forefathers worshipped this material object over the living God.
Stephen went on and described to them the idolatrous heart collectively abiding in the hearts of their forefathers.
Then he progresses in his account and starts to talk about the tabernacle and temple which God designed specifically for them and both Moses (in the tabernacle) and Solomon (for the temple) made with their hands.
Now one of the accusations against Stephan is that he “spoke blasphemous words” against the temple, or what his accusers called “this holy place” in chapter six.
Speaking of the temple made with human hands, Stephen uses God’s own views of it, and says in verses 48-50
48 However, the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith (God through) the prophet (Isaiah),
49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
I would suggest that Stephen accomplished several things in this ingenuous approach to them.
First, to a generation of men whose forefathers worshipped idols he showed them that Herod’s temple had become exactly that to them – an idol. And he used God’s own words to justify this stance!
Secondly, if this was the case, and they had made the temple made with hands an idol he showed that someone ought to speak against what these Jews were calling, “this Holy Place.”
And finally in and through his argumentation he condemned them – and not only justified himself in the mock tribunal but beat them through the use of their own scripture.
I would suggest that in the face of all of this these guys went ballistic – not physically – but in their utter rejection of all that Stephan has said.
To me, I doubt that they used scripture to defend themselves but instead appealed to emotional responses and probably said things to refute all Stephan has proposed rather than to provide scriptural reasoning.
I say this because they were in the flesh to the point that they were going to kill him. I also say this because of Stephan’s response to whatever uproar was occurring in response to his words as he says to them:
“You stiffnecked and uncircumcised of heart.”
This tells me that they were probably responding with things like:
“You are a liar, Stephan, you speak blasphemy” and stuff like that rather than a reasonable reaction like, “well what about this passage or that?”
Had that been the case Stephan would have provided them with a reasonable response, being full of the Spirit.
No, I think that between verse 50 and 51 Stephan was met with emotional rejection of his oration – one in all probability delivered angrily.
So we have Stephan saying words (that seem out of the blue) at verse 51
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Hgias Pneuma (Holy Spirit): as your fathers did, so do ye.”
The word stiff-necked is often used in the Old Testament and is a figurative expression taken from oxen that were obstinate and that would not submit to be yoked. Applied to men, it means that they were stubborn and unwilling to submit to the restraints of God’s spirit.
Then with circumcision being the sign of being a Jew, it was also emblematic of purity and of a person willing to submit to the law of God.
Therefore the expression “uncircumcised in heart and ears” denotes those who were not willing to acknowledge the work of the Spirit and submit to it. They had hearts filled with material tradition and a viciousness toward anyone who threatened their idols.
Stephan adds:
You always resist the Hagias Pneuma (Holy Spirit): as your fathers did, so do ye.”
This is an insightful line because from it we can see that whether the inspirations were falling from the mouth of Moses, David, Isaiah, John the Baptist, Jesus or Peter – all of them were delivered to their hearts and ears by the Hagias Pneuma – and Stephan says that these men now were resisting the same Spirit calling to them through His Words – who was neither a prophet nor an apostle – but merely a diakonos set apart to wait on tables.
And then Stephan adds:
“As your fathers did, so do you.”
Another insightful line because prior to it, and all through this chapter, Stephan in his narrative refers to the forefathers as “our fathers.”
Nine times in chapter seven Stephan uses the line, “our father’s” but now that this group has refused his appeals he turns and says
“As your fathers did, so do you.”
It’s a highly symbolic as the age of forefathers and genealogies was passing away, and all either have fathers of flesh or fathers of Spirit, with the former becoming wholly inconsequential.
Here Stephan was willing and trying to show a connection between himself and them – but now that they have (somehow) proven that they were refusing to hear from the heart the Spirit, Stephan severs connection with them materially and calls them “their (or your) Fathers.” And he asks: (verse 52 and 53)
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
In other words, your fathers persecuted all the prophets – an accusation that Jesus also laid at their feet when He was on earth.
In Matthew 21 beginning at verse 33 Jesus says to a group of Jewish leaders that had gathered around Him like they had gathered around Stephan and said:
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder (representing God), which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen (representing the Nation of Israel), and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants (Prophets) to the husbandmen (the Nation of Israel), that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants (the Prophets), and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first (like John the Baptist): and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son,(Jesus Christ) saying, They will reverence my son.
(Notice that He will send last of all his Son, which means no more prophets like unto Moses since God last of all sent His Son)
38 But when the husbandmen (the Nation of Israel) saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
(Then Jesus asks these Jews)
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen (the Gentile Nations), which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Which is exactly what happened in 70AD when the Lord came to the husbandmen.
In this passage of Acts 7 Stephen does something that he has not yet done in the first 50 verse of the chapter – he introduces in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to his presentation saying:
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: (and then speaking of their forefathers says) Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
In other words YOUR fathers have slain all the prophets that have come before the arrival of the Just One – the Messiah.
(LISTEN)
Of whom you have been NOW THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS!
(beat)
When we are guilty and our guilt is presented to us by others us humans have a couple responses to which we generally appeal:
We are humbled and broken.
We rationalize and blame.
We get indignant and very angry.
All are manifestations of the heart and mind of the individual involved.
The more humble and broken the greater the heart for God. The more anger and wrath the less.
I used to be VERY VERY defensive and responded angrily at all accusations – true or false.
In time the Holy Spirit has moved me to realize that in almost every situation where I am implicated I probably bear some guilt somehow or somewhere along the way.
And if I don’t, I’ve probably escaped ten fold accusations that I’ve deserved. So I am able to set aside the self-defense reaction and just humbly smile – because I am generally guilty.
Here, the Jewish leaders wanted no part in humbly breaking for their participation in the death of the Just One. Neither did they seem to rationalize their participation. They got angry.
“The prophets came to foretell of the Promised Messiah and YOUR forefathers slew them and now that the Just One has come YOU ARE THE ONES who BETRAYED and MURDERED HIM!
BOOM. Verse 54
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Standing before them was one of their own – a Jew – who had accepted Jesus, who they put to death – as Lord and Savior.
Standing before them was NOT a member of the Sanhedrim, and apparently NOT a scholar or one taught in the Law.
Standing before them was a man who was chosen by Jesus apostles to serve the believing widows.
And like Jesus, he had taken them to task, giving them a verbal history, connecting their errant ways to their idolatrous forefathers, and now he straight up calls them out as
Stiffnecked and uncircumcised of hearts and ears – YOU killed the Just One just like your forefathers killed all the prophets.
And the Jews were so inflamed by all of this they enraged, as if someone had taken a glowing red knife and stabbed them in their heart.
They could restrain themselves any longer and Luke tells us that they “gnashed on him,” with their teeth, a Hebraism that expressed extreme bitterness and malignity – so much so that what was actually in their heart was the desire for murder.
I am personally convinced that at this point that there was at least one – maybe more – of those listening, who were touched – and they may not have even known that the seed was planted.
But the witness of Stephan was too powerful, too on point, too true to not settle in the hearts of those who do love the Lord and seek Him with their all.
This is the goal of sharing truth with others – it is NOT to do the converting on the spot and claim to ourselves a “salvation.” It’s to share the truth like a sower will cast seed, knowing that there are a number of other things that must occur in order for the seed to take root – sun, water, protection from predators and the like.
So we do our part – we share – not knowing who will receive the word joyfully and who will not.
We cannot ignore the other fact of Stephan sharing – he personally suffered loss, in this case, his life.
It will be no different with us when we follow in his footsteps – we too will lose life, or at least elements of our lives.
I recently received news that a reunion of all of BYU’s swimmers who swam under a particular couch were invited to a reunion at the school. It was quite an event from what I was told.
Swimming – particularly college swimming – was a big part of my life. Four years of travel, twice daily six day a week workouts, teambuilding, memories.
Of course I wasn’t invited (big surprise).
That part of my life has been taken – because I have spoken out. The sacrifice is negligible compared to the joy of knowing Him but the principle still applies.
When we share Him there IS a cost in this world. Somehow or somewhere a price. For some in this world the price continues to be their physical lives. For others it might be a social, emotional, familial, civil, financial or even a psychological loss – but there is a price.
So they gnashed upon Stephan (verse 55 and 56)
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
I see the heavens opened. A figurative expression, denoting that he was permitted to see into heaven, or to see what was there, as if the firmament was divided, and the eye was permitted to penetrate the eternal world. Comp. Eze 1:1.
Every translation I consulted maintains that Stephan was full or filled with the Hagias Pneuma – the Holy Spirit.
The term for full – play-race – means filled and or covered completely or full – in this case of the Holy Spirit.
This is the goal – being filled or full of the Spirit and then responding, in spite of our flesh, to its power and presence in us.
Jesus was full of Spirit and Truth, as such was able to fully and obediently do what He did over the course of His life.
We seek the same and apparently there are times in the human experience where God will grant it – like in the case of the martyrdom of Stephen.
Full of the Holy Spirit Stephan was apparently aware at this point he was not going to find ANY help or support from those gathered around him.
Justice was not going to be done in his case anymore than it was done in the lives of all the prophets before him or in the case of God’s only Son – so why look out for help from men?
So he looked (steadfastly) to the only place that he knew He could – into heaven – the only place where we can place our trust.
Luke adds that looking steadfastly into heaven that Stephan “saw the glory of God.”
This phrase “the glory of God” is frequently used in scripture to describe the visible symbols of God.
It means some sort of magnificent representation; some sort of a splendor, or light – some sort of an exhibition of the presence of God.
In the case of Stephen there is every indication of a vision, or supernatural representation of the heavenly objects; something in advance of mere faith, such as dying Christians now have.
What was its precise nature, we have no means of knowing. Objects were often represented to prophets by visions and so it’s possible that something similar is intended here.
Whatever it was it was such an revelation that Luke, probably hearing from Paul, describes it as the Glory of God.
The Greek word for standing is HAY STAY MEE and it generally is translated standing, stood, or stand in the New Testament.
It is also translated “staunched” as in the story of the woman with an issue of blood and as set, as in Jesus was set on a pinnacle of the temple and was challenged by Satan to jump.
Because it is used mostly to mean stand I think it means Jesus was standing by the glory of God which is quite symbolic since we know that Jesus, as our high priest, entered into the Holy of Holies and we are told sat at the right hand of God.
The symbolism being that for Stephan, who was losing his life for his witness of Him, He stood. It’s very meaningful and may be true, but it is a conjecture and requires us to read into the text this imagery.
Here, as in many places in scripture, we have to decide how we individually will see this passage.
Some will suggest that it is all Hebrew imagery and those at the other extreme will suggest that Stephan actually saw what Luke says he saw (and admittedly the text does use the term “to see”).
May the spirit guide. I personally see Stephan actually seeing the glory (or light or fire of God) and literally Jesus standing there in what I am sure was the midst of it. So where I do find the symbolism comforting I remain unsure, when I consult the scholars, if there is really enough leeway present to take the passages literally.
Even the phrase, “on the right hand of God,” is a figurative statement and means that a place of honor or exaltation deserved and not necessarily at the literal right hand of something – in particular, God.
Verse 57
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
We might be tempted to believe that the actual members of the Sanhedrim were the ones who cried with a loud voice and ran upon Stephan with one accord but I think this would be a mistake for the following reasons.
First, rarely do leaders actually carry out executions – unless they have allowed themselves to get out of control. They typically hold themselves up as superior to the rabble and would probably think the actual taking of life would be the work of the commoners.
I am talking about the actual members of the Sanhedrim here and not a Rabbi of a local congregation or some roaming scribe.
In the case of Stephan the leaders came together to try the case and were there to ask Stephen if the charges against him “were so.”
Whatever happened between verses 50 and 51 probably contained their verdict that Stephan was in fact guilt of blasphemy and so that caused those who were there to gnash at him.
Also remember that in chapter 6 we read that prior to Stephan even speaking in his defense the following:
Acts 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council”
So there was obviously a large gathering around him as he spoke. They had heard enough, and Luke says that in response to the words Stephan said,
“They stopped their ears.”
They stopped listening . . . or, if you are a literalist they put their fingers in their ears and went, ‘blah, blah, blah blah, blah” so they couldn’t hear him anymore.
And then with one accord, they unitedly . . . (verse 58)
58 . . . cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
What were they doing? Taking life in the way that was customary according to the Law – by stoning – for certain offenses.
In Leviticus 20:2 God tells Moses:
“Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”
In chapter 24 when an Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord we read:
Leviticus 24:13-14 “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.”
This is exactly what the people were doing to Stephan – they took him outside the camp (or city walls), the witnesses laid their hands on his head and the whole congregation stoned him.
According to Jewish tradition it was not uncommon for the council members to stand by and witness the stoning as it took place.
We know from the Old Testament that Achan and Naboth were both stoned and that the Bible gives a number of reason why someone should be stoned, including:
Touching Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:12)
Breaking the Sabbath (Num 15)
Child Sacrifice (Lev 20)
Being a medium or a wizard (Lev 20)
Cursing God or Blasphemy (Lev 20)
Idolatry (Deuteronomy 13)
Someone who entices another to commit Idolatry (Deuteronomy 13)
Rebelling against parents (Deut 21)
A woman who said she was a virgin but wasn’t (Deut 22)
Sex with a woman who was engaged (Deuteronomy 22)
Adultry (Leviticus 20
And if an ox gored someone to death it was to be stoned (Exod 21)
Two witnesses were required for a stoning to take place.
We know that the people tried to stone Jesus but He escaped and we also know that Paul was also stoned to the point they thought he was dead – but he wasn’t.
What’s intriguing is what we think of stoning was not the typical manner of doing it – at least according to the Jewish traditions.
I always thought people picked up rocks and threw them at the convicted. Not always so.
According to the Jewish Mishnah (which is the compilation of the oral traditions) this was the first method employed:
(and if you want to check this see Sanhedrin, chapter 6, Mishnah 4) which says:
The place of the stoning was to be twice the height of the man to be stoned (with rocks placed below him) weird huh?
Then one of the witnesses (this was directed by the Law in Deuteronomy 17:7) would push the convicted by the hips so hard that he would flip over on his head and land that way on the rocks below.
The convicted was then turned onto his back.
If the fall caused death the witness fulfilled his duty but if the victim was not dead the second witness took a large stone and dropped it on his chest.
If THAT doesn’t kill him the second witness had done his duty and then all of Israel (specifically those from the community) would finish the job.
Stoning has been, and continues to be done in a number of cultures.
Why this form of punishment?
First of all, it is the precursor to the firing squad because nobody is really sure who takes the actual life when a number of people are throwing rocks.
Secondly, it causes witnesses to really take their accusations seriously because the witnesses were the first to throw the rocks or attack the convicted.
And while the punishment was done and is done by a number of cultures then and now I find the act being authored by God to be highly symbolic.
Under the Law, which was written in stone, there were penalties that were deemed just and fitting to the crime committed.
Were they barbaric – to us yes. But it appears that to God, when someone committed one of the crime described the only fitting punishment was the taking of life by rock, symbolic of the material the Law was inscribed upon.
A live by the law or die by the law kind of thing.
In the New Testament Paul speaking of the Rock of Horeb which Moses struck to bring forth water wrote:
1st Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Where the Law demanded death by Rock it also provided life by Rock, like the Rock in the Wilderness.
I cannot help but think that the form of punishment for those who were under the Law somehow relates to this.
When Jesus walked the earth he warned of another type of stoning that all people will now experience in their lives.
He describes it when he said, speaking of Himself:
Matthew 21:44 “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”
I see the first as believers falling on Him (the Rock or stone) by faith and as a people humbling themselves before God due to the presence of Him in their lives.
But I see the second group as those upon whom He would have to fall – and these, He says, will be ground to powder – imagery that invokes having their will rubbed away by brimstone.
In any case, Stephan was now being stoned. Prior to taking the action against him Luke tells us that they
“Laid down their clothes” (their outer garments that they were accustomed to wearing which they would lay aside when they worked) “at a young man’s feet whose name was Saul.”
And in typical Luke fashion we are introduced to yet another character, but this time to a character that will play the most major role in the early Church – Saul whose name will be changed to Paul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
The word “God” is not in the original manuscripts and should not have been in the translation.
The passage really should read something like:
“And they stoned Stephan and he said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Now, we read a few verses earlier that Stephan was full of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think this has changed. So full of the Holy Spirit we see Him calling to Jesus – who had ascended, therefore this is a prayer.
A plea, a cry to a being located in heaven.
So is it proper to call upon Jesus? Here we have biblical evidence that it is.
In fact I find this a literal application of
Romans 10:12-14 that says,
“Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
When Jesus was on the earth He had yet to overcome sin and death. So he taught to pray to the Father in His name.
I think this remains true as His purpose was to reveal and bring us to the Father.
But as Lord and Savior of the World, having submitted to all things laid on Him by the Father I am personally convinced that since all things have been given Him on heaven and earth there is absolutely NO impropriety in calling out to Jesus, our Lord and King, in prayer.
We have a strikingly similar situation recorded in John 20:28 where Thomas offered worship to the Lord Jesus, as his God, without any rejection from the Lord.
If Thomas did it in the presence of the Savior without reproof, it was right – or Jesus would have forbade it.
We might say the same thing here – if Stephen did it wrongly I would think Luke or Paul would either not have included it or would have explained that it was somehow improper.
I also think it is fitting that the Words Jesus used when He died were very similar to Stephan’s when He said in Luke 23:
“Father forgive them for they known not what they do,” and then a few verses later:
(Luke 23:46) And Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
When does Stephan say this? In the last verse of this chapter 7 – verse 60:
60 And Stephan kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Here it seems that Stephan voluntarily knelt down, possibly a placing himself in this position of prayer and choosing to die this way.
And with his dying breath he too asked the Lord that he “lay not this sin they were committing” to their account.
And Luke writes:
“And he fell asleep.”
A way to describe that he died.
(beat)
Q and A
