Stephen is arrested on false charges and put on trial (verses 11-15). The false charges against Stephen concern his attitude toward the Law and the Temple. Luke is clear that these are false charges against Stephen. He is not against the Law or the Temple.
Dating as early as F.C. Baur in the early 19th century, it has been thought that there was an early schism among the Jerusalem community, with Stephen representing a sort of proto-Pauline movement away from the temple and Law. Witherington cites Scharlemann’s study on Stephen as saying that the charges may be false but “not in the sense of being contrary to the fact.” Stephen was in fact anti-Temple and Law, according to this view, even if the witnesses brought to the Sanhedrin were lying. But ultimately, we cannot know really what Stephen actually taught since he does not respond the charges! His speech is not a plea of innocence to the charges against him, but rather than he is speaking the truth to the Sanhedrin.
These charges are not unlike those brought before the Sanhedrin against Jesus. Ben Witherington observes that Luke is patterning the death of Stephen after the trial and execution of Jesus. He has ten common elements, two of which only appear in Luke and Acts, that he commits his spirit to God and prays for the forgiveness of his accusers.
This is an important observation since in the Gospels the Jewish people reject Jesus as the Messiah, in Acts they are rejecting the promised Holy Spirit, the foundation for the Messianic Kingdom. Both rejections are punctuated by an execution of an innocent man. (This in no way says anything about Stephen being exactly like Jesus!)
Perhaps Stephen used Jesus’ statement that he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, or even his prediction that the Temple would be destroyed in the near future. This could have been used against him in the same way Jesus was accused of threatening the Temple. But Stephen (and Jesus for the matter) is in the grand tradition of offering a critique of the Temple and the Priesthood, begun by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible and continued right through the Second Temple period. That a Jew would stand up and say the Temple was corrupt was not particularly revolutionary – but to say that the work of your teacher replaced the work of the Temple would have been radical.
Stephen represents a different strata of Second Temple period Judaism which has the potential to be more open to the gospel of Jesus as Messiah and the coming Kingdom of God. But just like the Judean Jewish leadership, the synagogue of the Hellenists resist the Holy Spirit as well. Stephen is therefore arrested like the Apostles have been before.
But in this case we will hear a lengthy condemnation on the nation for their resistance against the Holy Spirit, leading to his dramatic execution at the end of chapter seven and the equally dramatic introduction of Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of the church.
Here is a problem for the readers of Acts. Luke chose to place this story where he did, balancing historical, literary and theological motives. What is Luke’s point in placing this arrest, prophetic speech and lynching at this point in his narrative?
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 5, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Jake Fields
I guess I’ll take the first stab at this post, yep, a Human Service Major. That’s one sentence. I’m not the most theologically minded person, but I would say there are a few good reasons that I can see that would explain why Luke put this story of Stephen at this part of Acts. One reason that came to my mind first is that it shows how important the Holy Spirit is because it is a story of how the Holy Spirit is rejected just as Jesus was. There were also some events that followed Stephens martyrdom that were by-products of the persecution that began with Stephen. Those events are Philip’s evangelistic tour (Acts 8:4-40), Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1-30), Peter’s missionary tour (Acts 9:32-11:18) and the church in Antioch in Syria was founded (Acts 11:19). The persecution and death of Stephen really sets the stage for Paul’s (Saul’s) conversion because you see this story of the Holy Spirit being rejected and now you get this Jew who persecuted the church and was known for killing gentiles, converts and starts teaching about Jesus. This is a statement to any reader about how strong the word of God is. That’s what I thought when I read this post, now all the Pastoral majors can pick it apart.
February 6, 2013 at 9:33 am
nick_mascorro
Though there are numerous possibilities for why Luke placed the story of Stephen where he did, a couple in particular stand out to me. The first reason being, to mark the beginning of the persecution of the followers of Christ, because though Peter and John were arrested in chapter four they were released. I believe that Stephen’s persecution marks the beginning and foreshadowing of the hardship the followers of Christ would have to endure for their faith. I also think the issue with Stephen has significance because it shows that the people finally had enough of the Christians speaking against the law, that they were ready to take action. This is because prior to this the Apostles had been flogged (Acts 5:40), but none had been murdered in the name of Jesus. So the martyr of Stephen marks a point in the book of Acts where the people of the law finally had enough with the followers of Christ. Also I believe that Stephen’s speech marks the beginning of the Apostles preaching the message of Christ wherever they went. This is because after Stephen death; in chapter 8 Luke talks about how Philip went to Samaria and preached the message of Christ. I believe this marks the start of the spread of the church (Acts 8-12) and where the true missionary journeys begin (Acts 13-28). This shows that the Apostles are not only preaching to a select few but now that they were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria and (Acts 8:1) they were preaching to all people (Acts 8:4). I also believe that Luke placed the story of Stephen in this particular place in Acts, prior to Saul’s conversion, to allude to the impact that Stephen’s martyr had on Saul. This is because like is stated in the post Saul is introduced directly after Stephen’s death, which one can only imply that he was in turn there. Also the fact of what we discussed in class about Saul’s mentor being at Stephen’s death implies he must have been there as well. This is significant because Luke may have placed Stephen’s story there in order to imply that Stephen’s death had an influence on Saul’s conversion.
February 6, 2013 at 2:42 pm
scottspooner64
The martyrdom of Stephen is a powerful story to say the least. He is the first recorded martyr for the sake of Jesus Christ. Why Luke placed the narrative where it is we cannot be sure here on this earth, but I believe that it may be placed where it is, to be the first example of a radical teacher who is not an apostle. Up until the stoning of Stephen there is no extensive record of teaching that does not come from the apostles; the death of Stephen transitions into Paul’s ministry. It also introduces resistance by the Temple, not just towards the twelve, but towards all Christians. In the text it records Saul’s presence and at the beginning of chapter 8 talks of his mission of persecution, “But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged of men and women and put them in prison.” (Acts 8:3) This one event sparks the anger in Paul and the persecution that ensued. No longer is Gamaliel’s advice to leave the followers of Jesus alone followed. With this backstory Luke sets up the story of Saul’s conversion and gives an example and origin to Saul’s persecution.
February 6, 2013 at 2:43 pm
taczhompson
I think that Luke’s purpose in the inclusion of this story is twofold. It seems, at least in part, Luke was trying to show a real start to a new era of persecution. Up until this point the persecution of the church was more of a “slap-on-the-wrist” style of punishment (not to belittle the painfulness of a flogging). But, now, with Stephen’s execution, killing has become a valid way of punishing christians. Also I think that Luke is making a specific connection between Jesus and Stephen. I think that the relation between the rejection of the Messiah, and the rejection of the Holy Spirit is significant to our understanding of their purposes. I also think it is an important part of how christianity was, and has, developed through the ages. It has always been met with ridicule. I also think it’s very important to look at Stephen’s point of view, and important to know that, though he was accused falsely, he really was against the things that the people were clinging to. This fact makes his speech all the more important, and shows a Jesus-like aversion to those stuck in the law. Again referencing the similarities between Jesus’ arrest, and Stephen’s. I also think that Luke was putting all of this about Stephen to further emphasize the start of a more extreme era of persecution. Up until this point, the persecution had been more of a “slap-on-the-hand” style (not to belittle floggings). Stephen’s execution marks a change in that, and starts a revolution, through Saul, in which Christians are killed left and right. But, through all of this extreme persecution, the church becomes more of a solid body, and begins to work, and live, as a more consistent and loving unit.
February 6, 2013 at 7:51 pm
jbefus
I think that the story of Stephen was placed in this part of the narrative to emphasize the rebellious and disobedient nature of the nation of Israel. This story seems to be a climax in demonstrating the Jews’ unfaithfulness to God. Stephen says in 7:52-3, “And now you have betrayed and murdered him – you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.” In his speech he looks back to the story of Israel and reiterates how unfaithful they have been throughout the years. So Stephen calls them out and ends his speech with that. To me that seems like the climax, in which there is no more patience left for Israel. Then after Stephen’s death, we see Paul converted and then begins the ministry to the Gentiles. I think this just shows that the author of Acts was intentionally putting Stephen’s arrest, speech, and death there to pack the final punch of Israel’s unfaithfulness and with that the story of Israel is put on pause as if a new chapter has begun. And then the new chapter begins with Paul, who would be sent to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.
February 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm
notcrudd
One thing that kind of stuck out to me when I was reading Nick’s post was that this was the first time that someone had really suffered for the cause of Christ. I think that he is right in saying that this is a turning point for the book of Acts and for the church as a whole. Peter, John, and at least one other disciple as we discussed in class had been arrested multiple times but the Lord had delivered them each time. They had been either released or set free and told to continue to preach in public even though they were threatened. They were given courage and strength through the Holy Spirit. Stephen’s story is different, however, because he was arrested but never imprisoned. He didn’t even defend himself against the charges but simply preached right at the Sanhedrin. Maybe they were tired of having the apostles “win” the fights that they had been having and wanted to finally make an example out of one of them; maybe they just didn’t like Stephen or the way that he was preaching; or maybe they were so angry that he was preaching right at them that they couldn’t take it anymore. As a reader, I almost see this point in the book as the fiercest part of the conflict thus far kind of like Luke is saying that it isn’t always going to work out for the greater good of one person as an individual. But even if that individual has to give his life for the cause, they can be assured that there is a purpose – this is where I think the introduction of Saul comes in as he is there to witness the execution (8:1) and this may have been one of the first points of impact that the Kingdom had on his life.
February 6, 2013 at 10:57 pm
John Caprari
I agree with Josh’s statement, “This story seems to be a climax in demonstrating the Jews’ unfaithfulness to God” (J. Befus). As already stated, if this speech/sermon is an attempt to defend himself and prove his innocence, he has done a bad job. It doesn’t seem like his motives were ever self-centered. The high priest even asks him, “Are these charges true?” (Acts 7:1). He had no intention to protect himself. Throughout the story of God’s people there has always been rejection of Himself. In Judges we see this cycle of Israel disobeying, finding themselves in trouble, and God raising up a judge to deliver them from whatever was enslaving them. There is definitely a history of unfaithfulness towards God among the Jews. The content of Stephens speech definitely reveals this element of disobedience as well. One of his final comments to the Sanhedrin makes it evident that he does not care about whether he is released or not. Stephen’s comment “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60) before he dies also might be able to be connected as a parallel to what Jesus said before His death. There is no doubt that the placing of this story is strategically placed. And as others have already mentioned, there is potential that this story is placed here because of the upcoming conversion of Saul. Luke is apparently trying to do something when he finished Stephen’s stoning with “And Saul was there, giving approval to his death” (Acts 8:1). Why would Luke put that there if it weren’t to show the transformation of Saul? It seems like he purposefully set that sentence in there to show this.
February 6, 2013 at 11:22 pm
anthonybeaulieu
I don’t have any doubt that Luke placed this story where he did for a very specific reason and purpose. Just as everything else that Luke has written, he puts things and stories where he did for a purpose and a good reason. It’s in the right spot that it should be because Saul gave consent to the execution and was there for it because even Paul rights about how he saw it and gave consent to it so it would have to be where it was. If Stephen wasn’t persecuted the way that he was, and if he didn’t give his speech, then people would not have known about the Holy Spirit or it’s power. I agree on Moscorro’s statement that the death of Stephen was a preview of the hardships and the trial and possible death for following Christ and proclaiming His name to the nations and people. Another thing that the death of Stephen foreshadowed was that persecution would come with doing miracles and doing things in the name of Jesus. They would get persecuted for doing works and miracles in the name of the Messiah that was killed by the people and high authority.
February 6, 2013 at 11:51 pm
leviwood138
The stoning of Stephen seems to me to be a victory for the enemy. A man who was filled with the Holy Spirit during his speech was deemed to be speaking herecy and killed.
February 7, 2013 at 12:09 am
Denise VanBeek
The idea of Stephen setting the stage seems the most reasonable to me. Luke set up Paul’s missionary journey and add power to it by sharing Stephen’s sacrifice. A huge thing that pops out to me is the obedience of these men. They followed God’s plan for them through the pain and the suffering. Stephen’s stoning puts this idea in our minds before we even see Paul and all of his hardships being thrown in and out of jail and being chased after by people who want to kill him that, God is faithful. God has a plan and purpose and if you follow Him, all is what is should be. Along the same lines as what Zac said, it shows that Christianity is serious. This whole follow and listen to God thing is for real. You can’t do it half-heartedly. Follow the Lord and Do what He needs you to do even though it will not always be comfortable and easy. Be willing to lose your life for Him as Stephen did. Be willing to suffer as Paul did every different place he traveled. Neither of these men stopped because it was too difficult because they knew of the power of Christ and spoke passionately of it. In our lives today, we need to have that same passion. If Stephen’s stoning had been explained after Paul’s missionary journey’s, I’m not sure if I would feel as impressed with Paul as I am. That is just speaking for me of course. Stephen sets up the trials that Paul faced and made them a more real and serious threat.
February 7, 2013 at 2:30 am
zac_schutte
I like this post and it really got me thinking as to the significance of Stephen’s execution. No where else in Acts is so much time devoted to an apostle’s death because of his commitment to Christi and the Gospel. As Nick said earlier, I also believe that Stephen’s death is placed at this point in the narrative because it not only fulfills Christ prophesy that, “All men will hate you because of me (Matt. 10:22),” but this also appears to be the true end to peacefulness between the disciples and the Sanhedrin/Traditional Jews. What is even more significant is that Stephen appears to be the first martyr of Christianity, an event that any writer, including Luke, would be sure to include. Stephen’s death shows the disciples and followers just what their commitment must be in order to maintain their faith, that they must be willing to die for Christ. This event is a foreshadowing of the constant conflict between the Temple and the disciples. It would be appropriate for Luke to start his narrative with the same way he ended it, with a follower of God dying for his belief in the Gospel. Though Christ’s death is much more significant, Stephen’s death also carries weight as it is the first event in many in the conflict to maintain a Christian faith in ancient Israel.