Stephen is arrested for speaking out against the temple and the Law of Moses. While Luke is clear that these are false charges, it is possible that Stephen has preached something which could have been taken as “against the temple and the Law.” There is no indication in Acts that the anyone “spoke out against the Law” among the apostolic community, they continued to worship in the Temple and most likely keep all of the Works of the Law which were expected of them as Jews. Sometimes scholars have speculated that Stephen, as a Hellenistic Jew, was already starting to give up elements of the Law, as if he were a forerunner of Paul’s theology in Galatians. There is nothing here that would give that impression, except the false witnesses.
To speak out against the Temple was not an offense worthy of death. There were in fact many critics of the Temple in the first century, including the Qumran community which separated itself entirely from Temple worship on the grounds that the Temple used the wrong calendar and was therefore celebrating Passover on the wrong day! If Stephen did speak out against the Temple, he is no different than Jeremiah, who condemned the Temple, the priesthood, and the worshipers of not doing true worship (Jer 7, for example), and Jesus himself who called the Temple a “den of thieves”! In addition, there are a number of Second Temple period books which also condemn the priesthood as corrupt.
If the audience could agree with most of Stephen’s sermon, it is his conclusion that angers them so greatly. This generation is just as stiff-necked, therefore they are under the same judgment! (7:51-53) The conclusion to this sermon draws on themes found throughout the Hebrew Bible.
Resistance to the apostolic message represents resisting the Holy Spirit. The people are called stiff-necked. The word appears only here in the New Testament and it appears 8 times in the LXX, usually in the context of covenant unfaithfulness (Ex 33:3, 34:9 and Deut 9:6). To be “stiff-necked” means to be stubborn, obstinate, or rigid” (HALOT). They are also described as having “uncircumcised hearts.” This phrase is also associated with covenant unfaithfulness, see Jer 9:25, Lev 26:41, Jer 6:10, Ezek 44:7, 9. Stephen says that this generation has always resisted the Holy Spirit. “Resistance” is a rare word in both the New Testament and the LXX, appearing only here and Num 27:14, where it describes the rebellion of the people in the Wilderness of Zin.
Stephen accuses the present generation of the same hard-headed resistance to the word of God which was demonstrated by the worst of Israel’s kings. Those who persecuted the prophets would include Ahab and Jezebel in the northern kingdom, Manasseh in the south (who was reputed to have killed Isaiah and any other true prophet who challenged him), but also the temple authorities who persecuted Jeremiah. Jeremiah spoke against the Temple and was nearly killed, Jesus also challenged the Temple and was killed.
The most stinging part of this critique is that these prophets predicted the coming of the messiah and were silenced by the appointed authorities of the nation. Most likely the Sanhedrin would have agreed with Stephen on this point, the prior generations were corrupt – but not so the current administration. This generation has done the same to the Righteous One himself!
What other elements of Stephen’s speech resonate with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible? Obviously he alludes to the Hebrew Bible extensively in the speech, but us he intentionally connecting his audience with the “wilderness generation”? If so, what was the point of this allusion?
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 6, 2013 at 11:13 am
arenberg93
Stephen uses some amazing imagery in this passage as he goes through the story of Abraham and Moses. The people had to have know this story very well as it was a huge part of their history, so this sermon didn’t seem like anything new to them at first. The surprise comes at the end when Stephen equates them with the rebellious freshly liberated Israelites coming out of Egypt. This was a shock, because the people listening to this sermon believed that they had “arrived” spiritually. That they had overcome all the idols and sins of the past and were following God’s plan. But somewhere along the line, they actually started to worship the law itself, instead of God and his will. This was why they were so adamant about keeping the law so perfectly; because they unknowingly worshiped that instead of God. Stephen is then comparing them to a generation of people who would not listen to the will of God, a generation who did whatever they thought was right. The point of this was to say that they needed to give up this idol of the law that they have created and turn to God. i do not think that Stephen hates or even disagrees with the law. I think that he sees that the law is actually hindering their faith in God, and is becoming a stumbling block in their lives. This imagery put into place by Stephen is brilliant, and yet his analogy to the rebellious generation and calling out of this group was the leading cause to his death.
February 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Hilary Rolff
Yes, I believe the connection was intentional. It is completely intentional in my opinion, Stephens’s usage of “stiff-necked” because of the parallel pointed out by P.Long in Deut 9. Both the “wilderness generation” and the audience have provoked the Lord and have been rebellious against him.
Throughout Stephen’s speech we see Israel’s rejection of God’s will, and specifically in Acts 7:35-42, Israel’s rejection of not only God but their “constant rejection of God-sent leaders” (ESV notes). We see in Stephen’s speech, the highlighted the story of Moses, drawing a connection between the “Christ/Moses typology” (ESV notes). In his speech we are told that during “wilderness generation,” this man (Moses) led them out, performing wonders and signs. Jesus also led his people, calling them to “follow me,” also performing signs and wonders. We see a little bit later in Acts 7:38, the “congregation in the wilderness,” the ESV study notes point out that this allusion furthers a comparison between “Moses presence with the Israelites and Christ’s Presence in the church.” In Exodus 33:12-23, we see Moses, found in God’s favor, interceding for the people of Israel, just as Christ was found in God’s favor (Luke 2:52) and also interceded for the unworthy. But both received rejection and a “thrusting aside.” Finally, in the turn of Stephen’s speech he states that, “God turned away” from Israel because of their rejection, much like God will when Paul condemns them for rejection and turns to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).
The point of drawing these connections is to open the eyes of his accusers to their unknowing rejection of the Law. They know and are well aware of the rejection of God in the days of Moses and know it to be an awful sin. To see their rejection now they need to see their mirroring actions toward God’s pointed leaders. Through hindsight, Stephen points out the ways of God accomplishing salvation in unexpected ways.
February 6, 2013 at 2:06 pm
danpierpont
I think the main thing that made the people and leaders of the Sanhedrin mad was that Luke connected them to the “stiffed-necked” people of Egypt. This just got the people all rowdy and ready to do the lynching. Saying that they are “resisting the Holy Spirit” and a little sarcasm comes across when he says, “was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?”. Coming from personal experience, this is the times that you know that I am guilty of anything that is being accused of me, when I become angry. I feel like this same thing happened to Stephen’s audience. They saw that he had a point, that it was accurate and they were ready to do something to make themselves feel better. IN our text book, it says that “stiffed-necked” also is translated to be, “stubborn, obstinate, or rigid.” (50).
Also a question that I, have for anyone, is this: Wasn’t Saul only holding the coats for the people that stoned Stephen? Why do we make such a big deal out of Saul being there if they only, “laid their coats at Saul’s feet”. I mean, I understand that he has a very large role in this but I also believe that Maybe he just didn’t do anything to stop them from killing Stephen. Maybe I do not know enough but did Saul approve of it or did he just go a long with it? I believe there is a difference. I like to think that Saul held the coats as an excuse to not have to throw stones. Maybe he was starting to think about what Stephen had just preached, maybe considering it, he held their jackets?
February 6, 2013 at 2:49 pm
annalange
Stephen compares the Jews in Acts 4 to the children of Israel. Just like their ancestors worshiped idols, these Jews’ idol was the law. They were putting “keeping the law” above having a relationship with God Himself. Over the years, the Jews remained the way that their ancestors were when they were wandering around in the wilderness complaining and worshiping idols. As Hilary pointed out, the Jews also rejected the leadership of their “God-sent leaders.” Israel also had a problem because many of their kings rejected God, such as Ahab and Jezebel as mentioned in Long’s “Stephen’s Speech” post. In Acts, they still refuse to believe that Christ had redeemed them and accept the Holy Spirit. In his speech, Stephen is comparing the Jews in Acts to the children of Israel to give the example that nothing has changed in their lives. He tries to show them that they are not any better. “This generation is just as stiff-necked, therefore they are under the same judgment! (7:51-53)” (“Stephen’s Speech” post). They still resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). Stephen is intentionally connecting the Jews to the “wilderness generation” because he tells them that they are just as stubborn as their ancestors. The Jews did not take this conviction very well. However, this was no different than their ancestor’s response to confrontation either. These Jews did the same thing their ancestors did when they were approached about their sin. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus were all killed because they confronted the Jews about their sin. We need to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit by responding to Him and bringing glory to God. When God places people in our lives to convict us of our sin, we need to take it well by acting positively to their feedback.
February 6, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Nick Van Loo
Stephen was speaking out against entrenched traditions in Chapter 7 during his speech. His speech upset multiple people and resulted in his stoning (verses 58-60, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them”). A couple of weeks ago, we had a sermon at my church about traditions. There are many traditions on church that so many people hold as Biblical truths, which are not found in the New Testament or even in the Bible. For example, tithing ten percent is found in the Law of Moses but the amount of ten percent is not found in the New Testament. My own father once said “Why, we only HAVE to tithe ten percent” (when someone said he should put in more).
I am not insulting my father or claiming he is not generous, I am just saying that many Christians have messed up ideas about what they “have” to do as a Christian. On a much longer scale, Stephen was telling his audience things that they have done traditionally that went against the “Son of God”. Stephen’s speech about their traditions so upset the crowd that it resulted in his stoning. Stephen was preaching with such passion that he did not hold back and even called the people “stiff necked”.
I think Stephen spoke with such passion and compared his audience with the “wilderness generation” because he was trying to break through the traditions and ways that they believed were the right way for a long time. Stephen had to use such strong imagery and language to fire the crowd up and get them intrigued. Stephen’s language worked so well and his imagery was so powerful that it resulted in him being stoned.
February 6, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Angell, Laurence
As I wrote a few days ago, I am not sure that the story about Stephen is true as I believe that the Romans would not have allowed that execution. And if they found out about it, someone would have paid a severe price for an illegal execution. You said that you would explain all of that later. And also, Paul said that his FIRST visit to Jerusalem was three years after he experienced his calling from Jesus. Also, is there any other record of an execution by Jews after the Roman occupation? I haven’t heard or read of any. I do like Luke, but I think that he is a good historic-relgious-novel writer who loved to intrigue his audience (whom ever that was in the 1st or 2nd century) with some flights of fanciful story telling to prove a point he was trying to make. As a former priest once said on his radio show – “there is a lot of truth in the Bible but the Bible is not always truthful.” I am a Christian who is learning Hebrew and Greek in order to read all of these stories in their original languages.
February 6, 2013 at 8:09 pm
cbefus
I believe he is intentionally connecting all those listening to him to the “wilderness generation”. The generation that was in the wilderness did not commit themselves to God full heartedly. In fact they did the opposite and chose to follow the examples of other nations of making idols their Gods (Acts 40-41). The religious generation during Stephens’s time followed the law so strictly that they were committing the same sin by making the law their idol. They did not follow the law out of love for God but out of personal gain. Using the law in order to be praised and also control others by using law when it gave them an advantage. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Mathew 23:23). The religious people at this time thought they were better than those who had come before them because in principle they followed God. Stephen wanted them to see that they were no better than their ancestors because both where not pursuing God the way he intended!
February 6, 2013 at 9:09 pm
Joseph Furno
I believe the point of all of his references to the Old Testament happens for a few reasons but I want to focus on one for a minute. This reason being to show that Israel hasn’t really changed even after 500 years. Just as the rejected and disobeyed God they now reject both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The majority of the nation of Israel continues to be hard-hearted and stubborn.
February 6, 2013 at 9:20 pm
nfisher2013
The whole of Stephen’s speech seems to be similar to the prophets of old. The Old Testament prophets spoke to Israel many times about their fall from God. Stephen’s point in reciting Israeli history was to bring the Sanhedrin to see that they are as Israel. They, the Sanhedrin, have fallen away from God and have rejected the Messiah, just as Israel rejected God and gave way to idolatry. Now, though the Sanhedrin did not practice idolatry, they did allow religion to take over their lives. They made their lives revolve around rituals and religious things, and failed to revolve around God. This was their “idolatry.” They made it more about themselves and their way of living than of God, just as Israel did in the wilderness. Stephen also likened the Sanhedrin to Israel in another way. Israel persecuted any prophet that God sent their way. Moses, Elijah, and Daniel were all persecuted in one way or another. Just as Israel did this, the Sanhedrin persecuted and murdered the Prophet God sent them, the Messiah. Because the Sanhedrin knew Israel’s history very well, they knew exactly what Stephen was saying when he recited it back to them. This is what drove them to kill Stephen.
February 6, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Sir Lundy
There are two major ideas at play here with the stoning of Stephen. The first is the whole background and detail that Stephen goes into with his speech referring back to the prophets of God. The second is his condemning and accusing nature at the end of his speech. These two parts help us understand the speech as a whole, but when you look closer I think Stephen really is trying to connect the Sanhedrin with the ‘wilderness generation’.
Stephen says “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.” This is right before he condemns the crowd he is talking to about their own hearts being uncircumcised. The imagery is a great picture, as you see the ancestors saying “we don’t want to follow Moses, (in essence), we don’t want to follow God, and we want to go back to Egypt.” Just as the people in the crowd are saying “We don’t want to believe that Jesus Christ is messiah, we want to keep our own traditions and do what we want, keep our power.”
I think the imagery more than anything is the connecting factor between these two groups. Stephen I think is using his effective communication skills to show the people “look, you say you are nothing like the old Israel and, yet, you are so similar. In hopes, I think, of using a bit of reverse psychology on them, in which he says you see how similar you are, but see how you can be so different so they will choose the right path.
February 6, 2013 at 10:49 pm
heatherjoyy
The fact that he (I presume Stephen) connects the administration of his time with the generation in the wilderness serves a plausible purpose. There could be multiple reasons as to why the High Priests were “stiff-necked” and one of those reasons is that the High Priests proclaimed their self-righteousness. As P. Long had mentioned, the High Priests agreed that “previous generations were corrupt, but not so with their own administration.” During his speech, Stephen called them out on their self-righteousness by saying that they had “uncircumcised hearts, and in doing so, he uses this “wilderness” allusion to further his point. This would certainly enrage the High Priests, and I make the assumption that there is some conviction there based on this response. They had previously denied and subsequently took part in crucifying the Messiah. Now they take things a step further by rejecting the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit is using Stephan’s boldness to convict the priests of their self-righteousness or pride; they are not above the Law.
The fact that Stephen says nothing about the false charges that are made against him might be another reason for the priests to kill him. During Jesus’ trial, He did not respond, but He forgave his tormentors instead. I am not sure that priests during Stephen’s trial knew how to handle that. Most people would probably respond rather harshly to false allegations and abuse. They cannot take Stephen’s antics anymore; the fact that he continues to preach despite their accusations. The priests figure that they best way to stop Stephen is to kill him. But before he takes his last breath, Stephen makes a parallell statement to what Jesus said as He was hanging on the Corss. After Stephen’s stoning, I believed that the High Priests remained “stiff-necked” beause they did not want to face their conviction(s). If the priests did so, it would potentially change everything. They would have to face that fact that they did take part in killing the Messiah, (their subsequent rejection of the Holy Spirit), and that every word that Stephen boldly proclaimed about Jesus while he was in their presence was in fact true.
February 6, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Marc Mullenix
One thing that I noticed was the connection of the Israel of the OT and being compared to how they really hadn’t changed their heart much. Yes we do have men who were men after God’s own heart, but for the most part, israel continues to complain about what is going on either in the wilderness or the rejection of Christ. The fact that israel hasn’t changed the heart of what God is doing for them, or obviously showing them shows that they really had not changed much.
February 6, 2013 at 11:16 pm
Chris A
I think I like Stephan even more after reading this post. He stirred things up and said things that people did not want to hear. Now, his reason for saying these things is much more noble than the reasons that I use to “mess” with people, but I can see the connection here! Honestly though, this speech was probably the last thing that the Sanhedrin wanted to hear!
Stephan is simply pointing out the same things that Christ pointed out; that the current Temple leaders corrupt hypocritical people. I imagine that they thought they got rid of this talk when they crucified Jesus, but then Stephan comes barging in saying the same things! What I am getting at is that Stephan said the things that the Sanhedrin needed to hear, but they ignored it again and killed the man speaking these things. I guess they had pretty thin skin!
February 6, 2013 at 11:46 pm
April Lorenz
The Israelites in the Old Testament were always praying and asking God for a Messiah and I think the reason Stephen tries to connect the Old Testament passages is to show them that they need to open their eyes and that just like God took care of their fathers before them, and they turned their backs on Him and did what was right in their own eyes. (Judges 17:6)
He was telling them that their Savior had come and they were as grateful for salvation then as they were when Christ died. They had in fact killed him and Stephen was letting them know. I believe that God hardened the hearts of the high priests and they were “stiff necked” as everyone seems to keep mentioning in their posts. Stephen’s bold speech lead to his stoning and he became the first Martyr. Speaking out in the temple obviously is dangerous and Christians don’t stop, they apostles do not stop just because Stephen is killed. It is encouraging that even with severe persecution that leads to death some people understood that Jesus died for them and they were willing to risk it to proclaim his name.
February 7, 2013 at 12:15 am
steveroemer
I would have to agree with most of the posts on here and say that it is very obvious that Stephen is referencing the Hebrew Bible and comparing the Jews he was talking to to the Israelites of the past. It is always easier and more enticing to listen to a story about something you already know a little bit about. I’m pretty sure this is what Stephen is doing. Unfortunately for the listeners Stephen lays on the guilt trip pretty thick. I really like what April Said, “I think the reason Stephen tries to connect the Old Testament passages is to show them that they need to open their eyes and that just like God took care of their fathers before them, and they turned their backs on Him and did what was right in their own eyes.” Stephen Tells so many stories of how God provided just what the Israelites needed and then tells the Jews that God sent the Messiah and like many times in the past, they turned their back and screwed it up.