Acts 7

Scripture: Acts 7:1-8:1

Highlights:

• Stephen is accused of blaspheming God and Moses by supposedly preaching that Jesus of Nazareth said he’d destroy the temple and change the customs of Moses (i.e. The Law) .
• When asked by the high priest how he pleads, Stephen reinterprets the history of Israel through the lens of Jesus in the following way:

Stephen’s Speech (briefly)	Implications of the Speech
We have a common father in Abraham	Stevie was stating that he was a Jew, and that he respected God, Moses and the Temple. He was starting with a common heritage on common ground with the Sanhedrin.
The presence, or glory, of God–the same “shekinah” that eventually settled on the tabernacle, then temple, to indicate that God dwelled among his people–appeared to Abe in Mesopotamia and gave him instructions to pick up and move	Abraham didn’t need the temple to experience God, just faith. God can meet people anywhere, temple or no temple. Holy land or no holy land.
After Abe, there was Isaac then Jacob then the twelve patriarchs. The patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, so they sold him to Egypt	Israel’s descendants rejected their leader.
God was with Joseph in Egypt and rescued him there. Then God exalted Joe to a high position with the Pharaoh.	God’s saving activity can take place anywhere.
There’s a famine and Joe is able to help his family out. It’s not until the second visit that the patriarchs recognize their brother. They all move down to Egypt to be together.	Israel’s forefathers failed to recognize their future savior.
Moses comes along (many years later when the Jews were no longer appreciated by the king) and tries to help some of his people by killing an Egyptian. The people Moses helped ended up not trusting him. Moses got spooked and ran away to Midian.	Israel’s descendants initially failed to recognize Moses as their leader.
Many years later God appeared to Moses in the burning bush (in the desert near Mt. Sinai), and told him that he was now standing on holy ground.	Moses did not need the temple or rituals to encounter to God. And what makes a place sacred is God’s presence. Without God there, there’s just dirt.
Moses saves his people from Egypt.	Though the Israelites initially rejected Moses, he still became their leader and savior. God’s chosen one wins, even if you don’t like it.
Moses told the people that, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people,” and he received “living words” (i.e. the Law) from God.	The law is delivered by revelation and it is alive and relevant. However Moses pointed to someone beyond himself who should be listened to. God’s revelation won’t be limited to the law. There is an additional messenger of God that the people must not reject.
The Israelites lost faith in Moses, and in his absence made an idol they could easily see and worship. They made sacrifices to the idol and reveled in “what their hands had made.”	The temple was believed to be the visible proof that God was present. It was the central place for worship and sacrifices in Israel. It was “what their hands had made.” In other words, Stephen was implying that the Jews’ veneration of the temple was the same to God as worship of the golden calf.
Stephen quotes the book of Amos to remind them that God punishes those who reject him by turning away from them and handing them over to the consequences of their actions (which ultimately leads to exile)	The Jewish leader’s faith is centered around an idol (the temple), and though they think they are acting like God’s people, they’re not. As a result, ruin and exile is coming. Exile is seen as the ultimate form of punishment for breaking the covenant with God–removal from the holy land.
We used to have a tabernacle (built according to God’s specifications) that moved around with us.	God was wherever his people where. The tabernacle was God’s provision of a structure for true worship. Mobile. Temporary. Ready to move.
David wanted to build God a permanent house. God ended up letting Solomon build it, but reminded everyone that the earth is his, so no one should think they can contain God with something they build.	The temple has become an attempt to contain and control God. Those in charge of the temple have become idolators.
You people are just like your forefathers–you fail to hold true to the law, you resist the Holy Spirit, and you have failed to recognize your savior. In fact, you killed him.	Steve is saying he actually doesn’t have the same heritage as his audience. His linage is one of faith, theirs of rejection and idolatry.Stephen is letting them know that God is judging them. The people who call themselves Abraham’s descendants have consistently failed to respond to God throughout their history. Failure to recognize Jesus now is failure to heed the words of Moses (the word of law). Abraham’s true people are those who accept the “Righteous One” and follow the Holy Spirit.Stephen is turning the tables on the Sanhedrin and calling them the real blasphemers. He is claiming to be more faithful to the story of God and the prophets than they were.

• Everyone’s riled up and Stephen references the messianic-laden passages of Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 to describe how he now sees Jesus as the triumphant “son of God.”
• The Sanhedrin goes ape, takes Stephen outside and stones him  to death.
• As he dies Stephen follows in his Savior’s footsteps by commending his spirit to Jesus’ care (just as Jesus asked of the Father), and requests that God forgive his attackers.
• Paul (then known as Saul) looks on with approval.

Historical Context:

The Temple

“…before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the three great pillars of popular Jewish piety were (1) the land, (2) the law, and (3) the temple.” [Longenecker]

The temple served as the religious, political and economic epicenter of first century Judaism.  Religiously, it was first and foremost a symbol of God’s presence. It was the official place of sacrifice and of prayer for all Jews. It stood a symbol to the world that YHWH was with Israel. Politically it gave the nation an unifying identity. Economically, lots of money passed through it in the form of tithes and offerings. (Based on Jesus’ efforts to drive out the money changers, it seems as though the economics of the temple had overshadowed it’s other functions.)

“The Temple which should have become their greatest blessing was in fact their greatest curse; they had come to worship it instead of worshipping God. They had finished up with a Jewish God who lived in Jerusalem rather than a God of all men whose dwelling was the whole universe.” [Barclay]

The tabernacle was the initial “dwelling place” for God. Moses built it according to God’s specifications. Generations later David requested to build a more permanent home for God (“Why should God live in a tent when the king lives in a palace?” David reasoned). The text implies that the temple was more of a concession on God’s part to human desire, than his real purpose. God did not particularly want a house built in his honor. Instead, God told David that God would build David a “house” — an everlasting dynasty. The real temple (“dwelling place of God”) is the house of David, built through his Savior, whose offspring are those who believe in him.

Stephen seems to be pointing out that one of the problems with a permanent, stationary temple is that it implies people have to “come to God,” versus what history tells us about what God really tends to do–go find his people.  This mindset of “God is in the temple, so everyone must come to us to see God” is why Israel (who was supposed to be a light to the nations)  thought in terms of the world coming to them for salvation. Christians believed that God would “come to you,” even those outside of Israel, the Gentiles–hence the upcoming missionary activity in Acts.

The Glory of God

The Jews associate the glory of God — the Shekinah — with the moveable tabernacle in the wilderness (Exodus 40), and later the temple (Ezekiel 43). So right at the beginning of his speech Stephen establishes that God needs neither tent nor temple to be present with people. “God’s self-revelation is not limited to the land of the Jews, certainly not to Jerusalem and the temple.” (GCI)

Stephen also uses the word glory to counteract the charge of blasphemy against God. It shows that Stephen regarded him as worthy of honor and praise.

Stiff Necked People

To be “stiff necked” means to be stubborn. One theory suggests that the term has its origins in the agricultural history of ancient Israel. When farmers would plow their fields by using oxen, if the ox didn’t want to follow the guidance of the farmer it would stiffen the muscles in its neck. This would make it impossible to guide the ox where it needed to go.

God used the term “stiff necked” to characterize Israel’s attitude toward him several times in the Old Testament [Exodus 33; Leviticus 26;Deuteronomy 9; Jeremiah 4].  The Sanhedrin would’ve heard this as a great insult.

Calling their ears and hearts uncircumcised seems to contrast their outward/physical obedience to the law (i.e. traditional circumcision) with their spiritual obedience/willingness to follow God.

Son of Man Sitting At the Right Hand

Not long before Stephen stood in front of the Sanhedrin, Jesus stood in front of this same group. When the high priest asked Jesus if he were the Messiah. Jesus answered: “I am…and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14). They reacted reacted by saying that Jesus had blasphemed and should be put to death. However, they decided not to stone Jesus right then. Stephen was not so fortunate.

This image of Jesus at God’s right hand is based on Psalm 110, in which the Messiah is portrayed as triumphant over Israel’s enemies.

Calling Jesus the “son of man*” has its roots in Daniel 7. Here, too, the Messiah is portrayed as the conqueror and victor.

“For Stephen to suggest that the crucified Jesus stood in a position of authority at the right hand of God must have ranked as blasphemy in the thinking of those who knew that a crucified man died under the divine curse.” (Bruce)

Interesting side note: This is also the only time that the phrase “the son of Man” appears in the New Testament outside the Gospels, and the only time it is spoken by a disciple. 

Stoning

The second-century Jewish writing Mishnah, describes the practice of stoning: “When the trial is finished, the man convicted is brought out to be stoned . . . When ten cubits from the place of stoning they say to him, ‘Confess, for it is the custom of all about to be put to death to make confession, and every one who confesses has a share in the age to come’ . . . Four cubits from the place of stoning the criminal is stripped . . . The drop from the place of stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses pushes the criminal from behind, so that he falls face downward. He is then turned over on his back. If he dies from this fall, that is sufficient. If not, the second witness takes the stone and drops it on his heart. If this causes death, that is sufficient; if not, he is stoned by all the congregation of Israel.” (Bruce)

Saul’s Approval

“Luke’s phrase ‘at his feet’ may signify that Paul is a leader of the opposition to Stephen. Perhaps he is instrumental in rushing Stephen and dragging him outside of the city to a place of stoning. Luke uses the expression ‘at the feet’ three times in the story of church members selling their property and bringing the money to the apostles (4:35, 37 and 5:2). There it is clear that the expression is meant to convey the apostles’ leadership.” (GCI)

If this action was a recognition of his authority, Paul may have been one of the instigators, if not the ringleader, behind Stephen’s trial and execution. His success in getting Stephen killed may have earned him the leadership role in the subsequent persecution of Christians.

Observations:

• This is the longest speech by an invidual in Acts.
• Why recap the history of Israel?  Stephen wanted to let them know that he believed in the same things as his accusers did, but that because of Jesus he now saw them through a new perspective. He also was showing that Jesus was the culmination of their hopes, not an offshoot, distraction or contradiction. Jesus represented the same God, the same truth, the same Law, they believed in.
• “Peter had earlier reinterpreted some scriptures in light of his new understanding of Christ, now Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus” (Furneaux).
• Stephen retells Israel’s story “in terms not of commandments and shrines, but in terms of promise and fulfillment, of prophetic sendings, and the challenge to obedience.” [Johnson]
• Stephen’s speech sets the stage for broader missionary activity because of the implications that God meets people where they’re at, and that his people are defined by faith and obedience. (GCI)
• Interesting that Stephen points out that God did not save the patriarchs from famine in their new homeland. Rather, they had go to Egypt (to where God was with Joseph) in order to get food.
• When Stephen said that God doesn’t live in houses “made by human hands” he was implying that the temple had become an idol.  The Jews used the phrase “made with human hands” to refer to idol worship (Sibylline Oracles 14; Is 31; Wisdom of Solomon 14 – IVP). Stephen was saying that Israel now worshipped the temple of God instead of the God of the temple.
• “Stephen develops a strong contrast between the idolatry condemned by Amos—the shrine [skene] of Molech and the idols (typous)—and the tabernacle [skene] of the Testimony constructed according to the pattern (typon) God gave Moses” (IVP)
• Interesting that Jesus is never mentioned by name in Stephen’s speech.
• Stephen makes the point that Abrham, Joseph, and Moses had to make a break from their current societies/situations to follow God.
• Stephen’s speech helps set the stage that there is “a new understanding of ‘the holy place’ in terms of a community (rather than a physical shrine)” (Williams).
•  Stephen commits his spirit to Jesus directly. Note how words that formerly applied to the Father are now addressed to the Son. Jesus was in the role of God, in the sense of being the one who saves.
• Luke notes that Stephen did not “die.” Instead, he merely fell asleep. A nod to the belief in the resurrection of the dead.

Discussion:

• Stephen’s speech implies that God can work outside of established religious customs/buildings/traditions. How has that been shown to be true throughout the rest of the church’s history? How is that being seen today?
• Stephen accused the Jewish leaders of trying to cage God in the temple and in the “holy land” of Judea. How have modern Christians confined God to the church building? To America?
• The tabernacle seemed to be God’s preferred “dwelling” because of it’s mobility/flexibility/impermanence. How does God maintain his mobility today? Where does he dwell? How did Jesus embody this ideal? How did Jesus identify himself/contrast himself with the temple?
• The temple became an idol because it became an “image of God” that could be worshipped. What “image of God” is an idol today?
• What foundational ideas in Christian theology does Stephen’s speech represent?  How are these principles still relevant today?
• How does the modern church perpetuate the idea that people have to “come to God” vs. the idea that Stephen encourages, which is “God goes to the people”?

References:

• (GCI) Grace Communion International Commentary
• IVP Commentary
• Guzik’s Commentary
• A Thesis on Stephen’s Speech

Post Discussion Perspectives:

• Why was Stephen so accusative of his accusers? Did his speech get him killed or was he going to die regardless?
• How long did Stephen have to prepare his speech? How much of this insight about Israel’s history was part of his normal debate with the Synagog of the Freedman, how much was his personal education, and how much was the Holy Spirit?
• The church still mostly sees God as living in a building/cathedral/worship center. We naturally try to contain God. (Though, gothic cathedrals are all kinds of awesome… from an architectural and aesthetic point of view)
• Church buildings can easily become like the temple–ornate boxes to hold our traditions and concept of God at a distance. How can we  “tabernacle” God vs. “temple” him? Missions? Home Communities? What can we do to keep ourselves flexible, fluid and open to moving to the next location?
• God is restless, on the move. He prefers to be on the front lines where the action is.

Acts 6

Scripture: Acts 6:1-15

Highlights:

• The traditional Aramaic-speaking Jews are accused by the Greek-speaking Jews of overlooking immigrant widows in the daily distribution of food
• The Twelve apostles think it is not a good use of their time to “wait on tables,” so they appoint a few holy guys, like Stephen, to do it
• Stephen gets into (and wins) numerous arguments with a local synagog (or two — see below)
• The members of the synagog(s) decide the best way to shut Stephen up is to charge him with blasphemy
• Stephen gets dragged in front of the Sanhedrin and accused of dissing Moses (i.e. the law and the temple)
• Stephen looks really chill despite the fact he’s facing the death penalty

Historical Context:

Hellenistic vs. Hebraic Jews

The first difference between these groups was language. Hebraic Jews spoke almost exclusively Aramaic (the language of the homeland), whereas the Hellenistic Jews spoke Greek (the language of the Gentiles/invaders). Secondly, though both of these groups lived in Jerusalem, the Hebraic Jews had lived for many generations in the nation of Israel whereas the Hellenistic Jews were part of the Diaspora, and had more recently returned from abroad to settle in Jerusalem. Third, the Hebraic Jews tended to be traditionalists and whole-heartedly rejected Greek/Gentile culture, but the Hellenized Jews felt they could include many elements of Greek culture into their lifestyle** and still be true to their beliefs.

One can imagine that the Hellenized Jews thought they could help their old-school, traditional brethren update their primitive beliefs/practices by incorporating elements of modern Greek culture. Conversely, the established Jewish community felt that any Jews who were willing to assimilate into the surrounding culture were giving up on Judaism. The Hellenistic Jews would advocate the pursuit of modernity. The Hebraic Jews would advocate that no good Jew would ever abandon their original culture, history, and religion.

The Daily Distribution of Food

The early church had started to build a charitable infrastructure quickly as indicated by the earlier chapters in Acts where people shared their possessions (2:44) and sold their possessions (4:34) so that no one was in need. The daily “soup kitchen” described in this chapter gives us a sense of how that manifested itself on a day to day level.

No doubt with several thousand members now part of the church it took considerable effort to manage the requests for help and the money offered to help. To make matters worse, immigrant widows from the Diaspora would probably be especially needy. They’d be less likely to have local family around to help, and if there was a language barrier they’d have a hard time understanding how or where to get help.

In the Jewish synagogues at the time, three men were appointed to care of the poor, especially the widows, orphans and foreigners (groups of people God was explicit about caring for–see: Deuteronomy 10:18;14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12-13; 27:19; Malachi 3:5; Isaiah 1:17, 23; 10:2; Jeremiah 5:28; 7:6; 23:3; Ezekiel 22:7; Psalm 93:6). They were called by the Hebrews Parnasin or Pastors and they distributed a weekly quppah, or poor basket of food and clothing.  From these existing practices the apostles took the idea of appointing “servants” (sometimes translated deacons) in the early church. They most likely appointed seven men so that each person could be responsible for a single day of the week. The number of people appointed to oversee the program, and the fact that it was daily rather than weekly✢, may be an indication of the magnitude of the needs they were trying to fulfill.  The needs may also have been magnified by the fact that the temple/synagog funds were probably being withheld from widows who became Christians. 

The Laying On of Hands

This is the first mention of this practice in Acts. The laying on of hands accompanies several other important events including baptism (Acts 8); healings (Acts 9, 28) and the commission to ministry (Acts 13). In the Old Testament the laying on of hands generally symbolized a conferring of office and responsibility (Numbers 8, 27).  The actual placement of hands is done by a few individuals, but they did so on behalf of the whole community. The same thing is true in Acts as the apostles lay hands on the seven men signaling that the whole church approved of them.

This wasn’t done to impart any special power or ability, but to designate that they had received the authority/approval of those who laid their hands on them.

Synagog of Freedmen

“Freedmen” were former slaves (or their children) who had been emancipated. These people may have been the descendants of those Jews subjugated by Pompey the Great and had been since liberated from Rome. Some have speculated that there were several hundred synagogues in Jerusalem at the time. Luke may have been indicating that there were up to five synagogues of Freedmen (i.e. Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia (the apostle Paul’s home town), and of Asia), or that there was one synagog with members from all these areas. It is speculated that Saul (soon to be Paul) attended one of these synagogues.*

Blasphemy

To “speak blasphemous words against Moses” refers to contempt for the temple and its rituals and to be disrespectful of the Torah (“the law of Moses”). As indicated in chapter 7, Stephen is declaring that salvation comes through Jesus and therefore the system of worship centered on the Jerusalem temple is no longer needed. The Jews saw the temple as the foundation and focus of Jewish life, worship and salvation. The Temple was where God lived, and was the only place where a sacrifice could be offered. The Law could never be changed. Stephen was saying that the Temple would pass away (and was never where God lived to begin with), and that the Law was but a stage toward the Jesus.

According to Leviticus 24:16: “…anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.”

The Face of an Angel

“The description is of a person who is close to God and reflects some of His glory as a result of being in his presence (Exodus 34:29ff).” (Marshall)

It is used in the Old Testament to denote peculiar wisdom, 2 Samuel 14:17; 19:27, or the impression which will be produced on the countenance by communion with God; a look of calm serenity and composure.

Observations:

• The “daily distribution of bread” gives a sense of what is happening in Acts 2 and 4 where believers “shared everything” so that there wasn’t “a needy person among them.”
• The apostles do not ignore the problem with the widows, nor chastise the widows for complaining. Nor do they try to hold on to this important responsibility, because they can do it only if they neglect their duty to preach.
• The seven men all have Greek names, indicating that they are probably Hellenists themselves; the people (and the apostles) show great sensitivity to the offended Hellenists by appointing Hellenists to take care of the widows’ distribution.
• Nicolaus, the last-mentioned of the seven, is a convert (proselyte) to Judaism from paganism. Only full converts are called proselytes. They are instructed in Judaism, baptized and circumcised.
• “Deacon” is not a title in this context. It is a verb, not a noun. It means “servant.” One speculation on the origin of the word is that it means “through the dust,” referring to the dust raised by the busy servant or messenger.This group is formally named as the Seven (Acts 21:8), even as the original apostles are called the Twelve. In effect, the office of the Seven is as unique as that of the original apostles.
• The word tables is sometimes used with reference to money, as being the place where money was kept for the purpose of exchange, etc., Matthew 21:12. Here the expression could mean “to attend to the pecuniary transactions of the church, and to make the proper distribution for the wants of the poor.”
• The same Greek word is used for both distribution (Acts 6:1) and ministry (Acts 6:4). The idea behind the word in both instances is service.
• The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. Curiously, this is similar to the charge brought against Jesus. Not more than a few months ago, this same Sanhedrin heard testimony that Jesus said he would destroy the temple and build it again in three days (Matthew 26).

Discussion:

• Who is being overlooked by the church today? Are there any deep-rooted prejudices we’re using as a filter to decide who gets help and who doesn’t?
• The widows did the right thing by making their need known, the apostles did a good thing by realizing they don’t have the bandwidth to fix it themselves, and the Seven did a good thing by taking on a relatively simple task as a ministry. Is this a formula to solve disputes in the church? How do we resolve them now?
• Where were Peter and John at this crisis? Apparently Stephen stands alone before the Sanhedrin as Jesus did.  Why didn’t Gamaliel speak up again?
• What was inaccurate about the charges brought against Stephen? What was accurate?
• Why did the apostles insist on choosing holy men just to hand out food to the poor, then give them such a ceremonial blessing? What does this say about the importance of these types of ministries to them? What does it say about the importance of unity and fairness in the church? Do we treat similar problems the same way today?

References:

• A good description of the Hellenist vs. Traditional Jews 
• Great commentary on Acts 6
• Guzik’s commentary on Acts 6

*Interesting side note: “The mention of Cilicia suggests this may have been Paul’s synagogue before he was converted. He came from Tarsus in Cilicia.” (Lovett) This may explain why Paul (then Saul) was present at the stoning. He may have also been present as a student of Gamaliel (a member of the Sanhedrin). Paul may have tried his wits against Stephen, a Hellenistic Jew (don’t forget, Paul saw himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” a devoted Pharisee at the time) and lost, which may have fueled his hatred and subsequent persecution of Christians. 

**Some commentators note that the Hellenistic Jews were willing to violate Jewish law to fit in with Gentiles by reversing circumcisions so they would fit in at the gymnasia.

✢The distribution of provisions to the poor may have been part of the “agape feasts.” As Joachim Jeremias describes it in his book: The Jerusalem church assembled daily, probably in the evening, where they listened to the Twelve’s teaching, prayed, ate together, and distributed goods to the needy.

Post Discussion Perspectives:

• With regards to the commissioning of the Seven: this was a ministry (feeding the widows) that taken seriously not just because of the immediacy of the need, but because of the emphasis put on this responsibility by God (see numerous Old Testament quotations above). Taking care of the widows was something God instructed his community to do over and over and over again. The next question that came up was: Which instruction(s) reiterated time and again by Jesus should the church be appointing people to run with now?  The suggestions ranged from more traditional church appointments like church planting and missions, to jobs/ministries/positions that aren’t clearly defined in the church like: loving one another, breaking down barriers between people, and helping individuals utilize their full talents.