Verse 1
"Then said the high priest, 'Are these things so?'"
Stephen responds in a long and powerful discourse.
There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally expect to find in it -- if we regard it as properly a defense -- a formal response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various individuals.
The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which they had falsely preferred against him.
Verses 2-4
We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his main theme. (2) "And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in which you now dwell."
Verses 5-8
Having now introduced Abraham, and brought him into the land of Canaan, Stephen quotes the prophesy, connected with the fulfillment of which he is to find the chief points of his argument. (5) "And he gave him no inheritance in it, not a footprint: and he promised to give it for a possession to him and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (6) But God spoke thus: That his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and they should bring them into bondage, and afflict them four hundred years. (7) And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage, I will judge, said God, and after these things they shall come forth, and serve me in this place. (8) And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs."
The period of four hundred years is taken by Stephen from Genesis 15:13, where God expresses himself, in round terms, of a period which was, more accurately, four hundred and thirty years, as we find in Exodus 12:40,41. This was not the period of their actual sojourn in Egypt; but, as we learn from Paul, (Galatians 3:17,) and from the genealogical tables in Genesis and Exodus, it extended from the call of Abraham to the departure from Egypt.
Verses 9-16
The speaker next proceeds to recount the circumstances which brought the people down into Egypt, in order that the rejection of Joseph, and the final salvation of the whole family through him, might stand out before his hearers, and be made to bear upon his final conclusion. (9) "And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt. And God was with him, (10) and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. (11) Now, there came a famine on all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But Jacob, having heard that there was grain in Egypt, sent out our fathers the first time. (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph's kindred was made known to Pharaoh. (14) Then Joseph sent and called to him his father Jacob and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. (15) And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, (16) and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulcher which Jacob bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem."
There is a numerical discrepancy between moses and Stephen, in reference to the number of Jacob's family when they went into Egypt. Stephen makes then seventy-five, while Moses states them at seventy, including Joseph's family and himself. [See Genesis 46:26,27.] The Septuagint translation of Genesis agrees with Stephen. Various methods of reconciling these statements are proposed, of which the only satisfactory one is this. The number given by Moses includes all "who came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives." [46:26.] The number given by Stephen must, then, include five of their wives, who were, probably, all that were then living. The translators of the Septuagint, having some historical evidence, now lost to us, that five of their wives went with them, saw fit to fill up the number in their translation, and Stephen followed their enumeration.
It was Jacob, and not Abraham, who purchased the sepulcher from the sons of Emmor, as is certain from the history given in Genesis xxxiii: 19, 20; yet it is attributed to Abraham here in the common version, and most of the Greek manuscripts. It is far more likely, however, that the manuscripts should err, in a case of this kind, than that the error should have been committed by Stephen or by Luke. I have, therefore, not hesitated to insert the name of Jacob, instead of Abraham, in the text. Dr. Bloomfield says, "The best critics are of the opinion that Abraham is spurious."
Verses 17-29
From this glance at the leading points in the history of Joseph, Stephen advances to the case of Moses, showing that his brethren rejected him in like manner, and were also finally delivered by him. (17) "But when the time of the promise of which God had sworn to Abraham was drawing near, the people increased and were multiplied in Egypt, (18) until another king arose who knew not Joseph. (19) The same dealt craftily with our kindred, and afflicted our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, in order that they might not live. (20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceedingly beautiful. He was nourished in his his father's house three months. (21) And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. (22) And Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and was powerful in words and in deeds. (23) And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to look after his brethren, the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. (25) Now he thought that his brethren would understand that God would, by his hand, give them salvation; but they did not understand. (26) The next day he appeared to them as they were fighting, and would have brought them to peace, saying, Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another? (27) But he who was wronging his neighbor thrust him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? (28) Do you wish to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday? (29) Then Moses fled at this word, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begot two sons."
In the rejection of Moses by his countrymen, when he was seeking to deliver them from bondage, according to the promise of God, Stephen has before the minds of the Sanhedrim another case bearing upon his final conclusion. It is true, that as yet they could not anticipate the use he intended to make of it, but the obscurity of his design awakened their curiosity, and rendered their mortification the more intense when at last it was suddenly developed. If they could have anticipated it, they would have stopped his mouth at the beginning.
Verses 30-37
There were other incidents in the life of Moses fully as much to his purpose as this; and to these he proceeds to advert. (30) "And when forty years were completed, there appeared to him, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. (31) When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to observe it, the voice of the Lord came to him. (32) I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and did not dare to observe it. (33) And the Lord said to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and have come down to deliver them; and now, come, I will send thee into Egypt. (35) The same Moses whom they rejected, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the bush. (36) He led them out, after doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37) This is the same Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren like me; him shall ye hear." In this passage, the speaker has not only presented, in a most emphatic manner, the contrast between the rejection of Moses by his brethren, and his appointment by God to the very office of ruler and deliverer, which they refused him, but has also made a further advance toward his final purpose, by introducing the prophesy uttered by this same Moses concerning the Messiah. This prophesy was still more apposite, because it refuted the charge that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses, in saying that Christ would change the customs appointed by him. If Moses himself foretold the coming of a successor who should supersede him, he alone pays proper respect to Moses who submits to his successor.
Verses 38-40
To keep prominent the ill treatment received by Moses at the hands of the people, the speaker proceeds to note their conduct in the wilderness. (38) "This is he that was in the congregation in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles to give to us. (39) Whom our fathers were not willing to obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, (40) saying to Aaron, Make us Gods who shall go before us; for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him." This instance of their rejection of Moses was much more flagrant than the first, seeing that it occurred immediately after the most splendid manifestations of God's presence with him; and that, in the very words which they addressed to Aaron, they acknowledged that it was he who had brought them out of Egypt. These circumstances also render more striking the analogy which Stephen is about to develop between him and Jesus; for he also had been rejected, notwithstanding the admission, by his enemies, that he had wrought miracles.
Verses 41-43
Stephen next shows that the same people who so often rejected the servants of God, likewise rejected God himself. (41) "They made a calf in those days, and brought sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. (42) And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of the prophets, O house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness? (43) You have even taken up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which you made, to worship them; and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." With this brief glance at the subsequent fate of the people who had so often rejected their deliverers, covering a period of many centuries, and terminating with their captivity in Babylon, Stephen concludes his summary of facts; but, previous to the final application, which he saw would raise a storm in the Assembly, he has a few words in reference to the temple.
Verses 44-50
Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not limited to temples made with hands. (44) "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things?" By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the life of Moses and of Joseph.
Verses 51-53
As Joseph, the divinely-selected savior of his brethren, had been sold by those brethren into slavery; and as Moses, divinely selected to deliver Israel from bondage, was at first rejected by them to become a sojourner in Midian, and was then sent back by the God of their fathers to be rejected by them again and again, notwithstanding the most indisputable manifestations of God's presence with him; and as all the prophets had met with a similar fortune, so, now, the final prophet, of whom Moses and all the prophets had spoken, had been rejected and slain by the sons of these persecuting fathers. The combined power of all these facts and analogies is now concentrated in the closing paragraph of the speech, and expressed in these terrific words: (51) "Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always resisting the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (52) Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? They murdered those who announced before concerning the coming of the Just One, of whom now you have been the betrayers and murderers; (53) who received the law through the ranks of angels, and have not kept it."
The pent-up fires which had burned within the breast of Stephen from the beginning of these unjust proceedings, and had given an angelic glow to his features at the beginning of his speech, had been carefully smothered and controlled during the progress of his argument; but now that the restraints of the argument were withdrawn, they had burst forth in these scorching and blazing words.
Verses 54-60
The exasperation of the Sanhedrim was the more intense, from the fact that the denunciation hurled upon them was not a sudden burst of passion, but the deliberate and sustained announcement of a just judgment. They had not been able to resist, in debate, the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke, and now their efforts to convict him of crime had recoiled terribly upon their own heads. They had no course now left them, but the usual resort of unprincipled partisans when totally discomfited, and to this they rushed with fearful rapidity. (54) "When they heard these things, they were exasperated, and gnashed their teeth upon him. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord, (58) and cast him out of the city, and stoned him. And the witnesses laid off their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling on the Lord, 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. And Saul was consenting to his death."
This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the faithful and regular proceedings of law, leaving their seats, and rushing with the wild mob, amid hideous outcries and tumultuous rage, to the sudden execution of a prisoner absolutely untried and uncondemned. But the maddest pranks ever played upon this mad earth are witnessed when wicked men set themselves in uncompromising opposition to God and his holy truth. So uniformly has this been true in history, that, at the present day, when such opposition is to be sustained, whether on great or insignificant occasion, no well-informed man expects aught else than disregard of all the rules of justice and propriety. If the infuriated scenes which have been enacted under such circumstances, in the history of Christianity, could be dramatically represented, the performance might be appropriately styled, The Madman's Drama.
The vision witnessed by Stephen, while the Jews were gnashing their teeth upon him, need not be understood as the real opening of the heavens, so that the things within them could be seen by the human eye, but only a representation to his eyes, such as those granted to John in the isle of Patmos. It was vouchsafed both for his own encouragement in the hour of death, and that the remembrance of the words in which he described it, and the hue of countenance with which he gazed upon it, might remain indelibly impressed upon the minds of those who were present. There was at least one in the audience upon whom, we have reason to believe, this impression was deep and lasting. The young man Saul never forgot it; but, long afterward, when bending under the weight of many years, he makes sad mention of the part he took in these dreadful proceedings. [1 Timothy 1:12,13.]
The death of Stephen was an event of most thrilling interest to the young Church, and well deserves the large space allotted to it by the historian. The disciples had embarked, with all their interests, both temporal and eternal, in the cause of one, who, though he proved himself mighty to deliver, while present with them, had now gone away beyond the reach of vision, and no longer held personal converse with them. They had struggled on faithfully thus far, and, amid many tears, some stripes, and much affliction, they had still found a deep satisfaction of soul in his service. It was demonstrated that their faith could sustain them in life, even amid very bitter trials; but it was not yet known how it would sustain them in the hour of death. No one of their number had yet tried the dread reality, and no man can now tell how much their spirits may have wavered in the prospect, and inclined backward toward the faith of their fathers, distrustful of the new arm of salvation. How great the strength, therefore, and how sweet the consolation imparted to every heart, when the first who died was so triumphant in the pangs of death! After witnessing the scene, they could go onward in their tear-dimmed course of suffering, without one fear or care for that within the grace, or beyond it. At the late day in which we live, which has been preceded by the happy death of millions of Christians, and which is often yet made deeply glad by their triumphs in the trying hour, we are not able to appreciate the eagerness with which the first disciples drank in the consolations of this glorious death. It was a fortuitous and most fitting preparation for the fiery ordeal through which the Church were immediately afterward called to pass.
We omit any notice of the part taken by Saul in this shocking tragedy till we come to comment on the ninth chapter, where his career becomes the leading theme of the historian.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
CHAPTER 6
Verse 1
From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences.
(1) "Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration."
The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The "daily ministration" is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made "to every one according as he had need." That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants.
Verses 2-4
This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay.
When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly. (2) "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word." The alternative with the apostles was to "leave," in some degree, "the word of God," and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and "continue in prayer and the ministry of the word" as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole "multitude of the disciples" should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of "good repute;" not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren.
They must also be men who were "full of the Holy Spirit." Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears "doing great wonders and miracles among the people," seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, "full of the Holy Spirit," generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was "full of the Spirit" in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day.
The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (Acts 6:1) and their service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (Acts 6:2) the same which expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10-13. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was "to serve tables," diakonein trapezais; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the "Commentary on Acts," xxi: 8.
Verses 5, 6
The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it, (5) "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them." It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men.
All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors.
Of Nicolas, it is said that he was "a proselyte of Antioch," which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised.
Stephen is specially described as "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit," not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men "full of the Holy Spirit." But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven.
The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to "look out" the men, "whom," say the apostles, "we may appoint over this business." The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office.
The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches.
Verse 7
The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) "And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith." This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem.
The expression used concerning these priests, that they became "obedient to the faith," is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was "for obedience to the faith among all nations." [Romans 1:5.] Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who "obey not the gospel," whatever may be their faith, will be "destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power." [2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.]
There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, "The word of God increased," and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: "There was a precious season of grace;" "The Lord was present in his saving power;" "A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit," etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence.
Verse 8
We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) "Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people." The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was "full of faith." This accords with the fact already observed, (Acts 3:16,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.
Verses 9, 10
The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon's Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) "Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke."
The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus.
The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun [See Acts 7:58 below.] identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and "brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel." [22:3; 23:6.] The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel--the great teacher of the Pharisees--the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, "teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded." This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all.
This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke." By the "spirit by which he spoke," I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked.
In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him.
Verses 11-14
When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) "Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God." This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) "And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us."
This is the first time that "the people" are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the "fear of the people" had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor. The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy "against Moses and God," otherwise expressed, "against this holy place, and the law." The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: "We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us." It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent.
Verse 15
As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors--who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his words--must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) "And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel." There is no need to suppose anything supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been their agitation!
From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences.
(1) "Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration."
The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The "daily ministration" is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made "to every one according as he had need." That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants.
Verses 2-4
This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay.
When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly. (2) "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word." The alternative with the apostles was to "leave," in some degree, "the word of God," and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and "continue in prayer and the ministry of the word" as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole "multitude of the disciples" should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of "good repute;" not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren.
They must also be men who were "full of the Holy Spirit." Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears "doing great wonders and miracles among the people," seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, "full of the Holy Spirit," generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was "full of the Spirit" in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day.
The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (Acts 6:1) and their service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (Acts 6:2) the same which expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10-13. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was "to serve tables," diakonein trapezais; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the "Commentary on Acts," xxi: 8.
Verses 5, 6
The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it, (5) "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them." It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men.
All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors.
Of Nicolas, it is said that he was "a proselyte of Antioch," which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised.
Stephen is specially described as "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit," not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men "full of the Holy Spirit." But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven.
The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to "look out" the men, "whom," say the apostles, "we may appoint over this business." The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office.
The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches.
Verse 7
The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) "And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith." This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem.
The expression used concerning these priests, that they became "obedient to the faith," is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was "for obedience to the faith among all nations." [Romans 1:5.] Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who "obey not the gospel," whatever may be their faith, will be "destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power." [2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.]
There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, "The word of God increased," and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: "There was a precious season of grace;" "The Lord was present in his saving power;" "A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit," etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence.
Verse 8
We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) "Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people." The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was "full of faith." This accords with the fact already observed, (Acts 3:16,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.
Verses 9, 10
The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon's Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) "Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke."
The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus.
The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun [See Acts 7:58 below.] identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and "brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel." [22:3; 23:6.] The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel--the great teacher of the Pharisees--the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, "teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded." This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all.
This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke." By the "spirit by which he spoke," I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked.
In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him.
Verses 11-14
When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) "Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God." This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) "And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us."
This is the first time that "the people" are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the "fear of the people" had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor. The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy "against Moses and God," otherwise expressed, "against this holy place, and the law." The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: "We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us." It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent.
Verse 15
As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors--who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his words--must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) "And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel." There is no need to suppose anything supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been their agitation!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)