Lesson 7
Stephen’s Defense
Acts 7
After various accusations have been made against Stephen, he is allowed by the high priest to defend himself. This defense we find in this rather long chapter. Some have said that he does not defend himself against the particular accusations which have been leveled against him, but this is not true. He indeed answers his accusers. He is going to do this out of Israel’s own history. He divides this history into the time of Abraham (vs. 2–16); the time of Moses (vs. 17-43); and into the time of David and Solomon (vs. 44–50). Although this defense cannot very well be split, it is divided into three parts.
The way in which Stephen now reviews the history of Israel for the Sanhedrin is educational. It is not merely a review of a history which each one of his listeners knew very well, nor is it a review of the entire history of God’s Old Testament people. He has something very definite in mind. He will show these people before whom he makes his defense that he is not guilty of those things of which they have accused him, but that they are the guilty ones. He is also going to show by this brief review that the Old Testament history is redemptive in character. One may not look upon the Old Testament as merely a group of stories from which we may derive lessons, as the Scriptures are often used to do even to the present day. All things in the Old Testament revelation pointed forward to the fulfillment of what the Old Testament saints saw. This fulfillment occurred in Jesus Christ! The members of this Sanhedrin also looked at the visible things of the Old Testament and thought that those things had to be preserved at all costs. Stephen will show them that they are wrong, and that their wrong interpretation has led them to crucify the Lord of glory. He takes an “historical redemptive” approach perhaps more than any other writer of New Testament times. Those before whom he makes his defense will be able to learn a lot from this man and he will show them a whole new approach to Old Testament history.
He urges his listeners to give their attention not to him but to the revelation of God. He is polite in his address. In this address we encounter various problems when we carefully compare his account with the Old Testament history. For our purpose it is not necessary to go into all of them. Many, though not all, of these difficulties fall away, when we consider that he used the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is also worthy of note that the members of the Sanhedrin do not interrupt him in his discourse despite the fact that they held the O.T. in high regard.
The Patriarchs
First of all he considers the history of Abraham. This man was called from “beyond the river” and finally came into the land where the Jews now dwell. This land was given him as an inheritance, but, at the time of his death he did not own a square foot of it. He had to buy a piece of land so that he might bury his wife. Besides this, Abraham’s seed would inherit this land . This promise was made when he had no children and it did not appear that he ever would be a father. God had already spoken to Abraham of the fact that his descendants would be taken captive to another land where they would be treated shamefully. But, God will watch over his seed and judge the nation which oppressed them. Then they will return to their land. God used many detours to make His promises stand. He asked for great faith!
God gave Abraham a sacrament. This was to assure him again of the truth of the promise he had received from his God. Stephen compresses this history. He only speaks of the circumcision of Isaac. Isaac begat Jacob and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs. These were the heads of the tribes. Now only Joseph is mentioned, because it is through the happenings in the life of Joseph that God realizes His purposes with His people. Joseph is elevated to the second in command in Egypt and the famine drives the entire household of Jacob there. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, speaks of nine sons of Joseph and therefore 75 and not 70. It is noteworthy that Isaac was promised the land before his circumcision and that the patriarchs had to leave the promised land in their lifetime and were only buried there!
Moses
Stephen had been accused of not sufficiently honoring Moses. He now goes into the history of this man of God. This history is necessary to see how Israel again came out of the land of Egypt and finally found their home in the land of Canaan.
Stephen shows only the preparation of this man Moses. He was very fair in the sight of God. He, though belonging to that hated race which Pharaoh sought to eliminate, was brought up by Pharaoh’s daughter! God has the controls firmly in His hand. Because he was brought up in the household of Pharaoh, he was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. This was considerable already in that time. Later Paul receives a very good classical education before his conversion. Moses received this kind of education before he was called to lead God’s people.
This Moses, who was to become the deliverer of Israel, was not successful in his first attempt to do so. He was about 40 years old at this time, says Stephen. Moses took things into his own hands. Of course, this failed. He delivered one person—but is now in danger of his life and has to flee to Midian. Here he will have to learn a great deal. The deliverance of Israel seems far removed. God then calls him to his task in the burning bush. Here there was no temple, notice, but the ground where God is holy! Stephen had not rejected Moses, but their fathers had done so. God sends him back to Egypt and Moses leads the people out with many wonders and signs. Did the people follow him? No, they rebelled against him time and again. This Moses prophesied of a prophet like him who would be raised up later! Through Moses God gave the law to Israel and many other revelations. However, the people rejected Moses. They went so far as to make a golden calf, and they worshipped the stars and heathen gods. The fathers did not obey Moses and wanted to return to Egypt.
According to Amos, which Stephen quotes, they did not bring the sacrifices during the time they wandered in the wilderness. For forty years these proper sacrifices were not brought.
Tabernacle and Temple
Then God gave them a tabernacle as a symbol of His dwelling with His people. This had to be made in such a way that it was evident that God Himself was the architect. This tabernacle went into Canaan with them in the days of Joshua. It lasted until the time of David. Notice how he skips large segments of history in order to come to the point on which he has been accused, that he did not hold the temple in proper honor. There was none until David’s time! He was not even allowed to build it! It had to wait another generation, because Solomon finally built the temple unto God. Solomon makes it very clear at the dedication of this temple that God cannot be contained in it. Isaiah is quoted to bolster this view.
This defense of Stephen is just beautifully crafted! It is a work of art! Joseph did not make himself known to his brothers the first time they came, but the second. Moses did not deliver Israel the first time he tried, but the second. Moses is not THE prophet, but there is Another Who is to come. God allows them to make a tent (tabernacle) first, but finally a permanent house (the temple). He moves slowly through this history but He moves methodically toward the Christ! He, after all, is the fulfillment of all of this Old Testament history.
Fixing Blame
Having made this most appropriate defense, Stephen proceeds with the application. Does he admit guilt on any count? On none—instead—they, his accusers are guilty of the things whereof they have accused him. He has turned the proceedings about completely. They always cling to the material and to the visible. They hold to the stones of the temple. Their fathers persecuted the prophets, and his listeners do the same thing. Their fathers killed the prophets and their sons have even gone farther—they have killed the Righteous One! Their fathers killed those who spoke of Him; they have killed Him. They are heathenish in their hearts and ears. They rejected the law and Him who fulfilled it. That law fame through the instrumentality of angels, and they didn’t keep it!
The Martyrdom
The members of the Sanhedrin have not interrupted him as he took them through the history of Israel, but this application is too much. They become enraged. Beside themselves, they gnash their teeth and lose control of themselves. The proclamation of the truth does this!
It is said again that Stephen “was filled with the Holy Spirit.” He sees the heavens open and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. He doesn’t keep this to himself, but tells them what he sees! This intensifies the fury of his accusers. Together they rush at him, take him outside the city and stone him. Luke tells us that they lay their garments at the feet of a certain Saul of Tarsus.
Where are the Roman authorities? The Jews may not kill someone. But, Rome often winked at such happenings, that was the Pax Romana.
Stephen cries: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” At the close he cries: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” Forgiveness! He was heard. A certain Saul of Tarsus later turns to the Lord. Then Stephen “fell asleep.” This is a common New Testament statement concerning the death of believers, and is never used of unbelievers.
Questions for discussion:
1. What is usually the importance of Bible stories for us? Do we deal with them in a manner much different from fables? 2. Does the fact that Stephen speaks as he does detract at all from the fact that he was a deacon?3 . Is it of importance to see how the Scriptures are often works of art? Notice the groups of eight verses as found in Psalm 119.
4. Is Stephen sometimes mistaken in his facts? Compare Genesis and Acts 7. 5. In which way was Moses the Mediator of the Old Testament? 6. Is there significance in the fact that Solomon rather than David was allowed to build the temple?7 . Does the true preaching of the word lead men to crazed actions? Why?
Lesson 8
THE GOSPEL COMES TO SAMARIA
Acts 8:1–24
Chapter eight is very important for our understanding of the book of Acts. The beginning of this chapter records that Saul of Tarsus, though not the instigator of the death of Stephen, was nevertheless in complete agreement with it. This is the man of whom much will be said later. Here is an indication of the long road he must travel before he becomes the fit instrument for the Spirit’s use in bringing many to faith in the Lord. The rather cursory remarks which Luke makes about Saul all serve to give us a full picture of what the Spirit of God is able to accomplish in the heart of a man. Saul found delight in the death of Stephen and will later seek to bring many more to the same condemnation.
Devout men buried Stephen and lamented his death. It must seem to these early Christians that God is seeking to thwart His own purposes. Why does He allow such a foul deed to happen? The church had need of men of the caliber of Stephen. There are never many such people.
Persecution Spreads the Gospel
By the persecution that began with the death of Stephen the believers are now scattered outside of Jerusalem. The authorities are not going to be satisfied with the death of this one man, they will seek out many more. Faith is now going to be put to the test. People will have to leave homes and fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters for the sake of the gospel. Is it not strange that there was not this kind of scattering after the death of Christ, but now, after the death ofStephen the people are not left alone? The answer is rather simple—upon the death of Jesus there was no church! Only a handful of people clung to His teaching. That posed no threat. Now, when the number of believers was counted in thousands, the threat is not imaginary. But, the agenda which Jesus had given the Apostles in Acts 1:8 is slowly being fulfilled. Those who are scattered abroad do not behave in a passive manner—they go everywhere preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is indeed true that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. This was shown after this first martyrdom.
It is also strange that the Apostles were not scattered abroad. One would think that these would be the first to be forced to leave. This is, however, not the case. There still remained a church in Jerusalem, and the Apostles ministered to this church. No doubt, they were in hiding, but they stayed in the capital of the Jews.
Once more we read of Saul. As a wild man, he seeks to lay waste the church of Christ! He seems to have obtained authority to go into the homes of people and drag them to prison. Saul is not a citizen of Laodicea! He goes to all lengths to do those things which he considers to be right.
Philip Preaches in Samaria
One of those who has been forced to flee Jerusalem is the deacon and evangelist, Philip. He comes to a city in Samaria and there preaches Christ. This is the message of the gospel. It has a Person as its subject. He is not able to carry on his task of “waiting on tables” in Jerusalem any longer, and now he does a far greater work in proclaiming the gospel. No doubt, he was an evangelist before he had been appointed a deacon. The history of the church has not yet developed to the stage in which a clear differentiation is made between the offices in the church. This becomes clearer in the later books of the New Testament, such as the letters to Timothy. But, it is clear that the death of one deacon has led to the fleeing of another deacon to Samaria where he may proclaim the good news of salvation. Luke later tells us that Paul stayed with Philip (Acts 21:8).
Is the work of Philip approved by God? He finds phenomenal success. He preaches boldly and the Lord gives him the power to do miracles so that evil spirits come out of those possessed by them, and the palsied and the lame were healed. It is almost as though we were back in the days in which Jesus was here on earth. When the name of Christ truly goes forth in the preaching of the word, great things happen. Because the people have heard the gospel and see the accompanying signs, they rejoice!
Encounter With Simon
The manner in which the gospel was received in Samaria gives promise of great things to come. However, does the gospel ever have smooth sailing? It seems as though there are always difficulties to surmount. Samaria was no exception. There is a man in this city who has exerted tremendous influence before Philip came. He was a sorcerer, a wizard, who received his power from evil spirits. This man had a wide follow ing because he also did marvelous signs in the city. How is it possible that the Lord allows such men to mislead the people? How is it possible that they are able to do miracles? This is by no means the only time that this phenomenon is referred to in the Bible. Jesus says: “If I cast out demons by the prince of demons, then by whom do your sons cast them out?” In other words, they cast them out too. Moses and Aaron do great miracles before Pharaoh in Egypt, but the magicians are able to do some of them too. This Simon the sorcerer gave the impression to the people that he was indeed a great man. Is there here, perhaps, an allusion to the fact that the Samaritans also looked for a Messiah and that this man gave the imprison that he was the one? All the people had followed him and proclaimed that “This man is that power of God which is called Great!” His influence has long been great in this city. More and more, the people follow him as his success breeds more success.
True and False Conversions
With the coming of Philip, things change. Simon might be able to do signs; he was not able to give the good news of salvation. The people left him and followed Philip instead. It is now added that beside the preaching of the name of Jesus Christ, he also preached about the kingdom of God. Salvation?, most assuredly. But, this salvation brings certain responsibilities. Every part of life must be subjected to the true King of our lives. The people believed this preaching and were then baptized. Even Simon the sorcerer is baptized. It seems that he cannot get enough of the teaching of Philip, because he clings to him, amazed at the miracles performed by Philip. Evidently these miracles are different from those he has performed.
The next paragraph offers many problems, but is also of great significance to the church of later ages. The tidings of what has happened in Samaria comes to Jerusalem. The church sends Peter and John. Must these men do something which Philip could not do? They come to investigate. These two Apostles pray for the believers here in Samaria that the Holy Spirit may be given them. These believers have not yet received the Spirit but have only been baptized into the name of Jesus. When the two Apostles lay their hands on them, they receive the Spirit.
Various questions rise . How could they believe without having received the Holy Spirit? How could they be allowed to receive baptism without having received the Spirit? Is the preaching of a Phil ip only preparatory and does it not really have the authority of the preaching of the Apostles? These are legitimate questions and must be faced. By their words they must have indicated to Philip that they believed and that they were therefore fit candidates for baptism. It seems that the gift of the Spirit, in the sense of Pentecost, could only come through the Apostles. Christ had entrusted the disciples with the planting of the church. The laying on of hands was not always found (cf. Acts 10 on Cornelius). We must be careful that we do not make normative what is here only given us as a true account of this episode.
Remember, Simon has also been baptized. He had “believed.” But, his was not the genuine faith. He sees that the people have received the Spirit through the laying on of hands by the Apostles. How he can see this is not said. There may have been some of the wonders again which also accompanied the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost. This looks good to him . If he only had the power to give this to people! He will pay for that power and will then later charge those to whom he has given the Spirit. To Simon it becomes a business deal. From his name and his actions we have received the term “simony,” which means to traffic in that which is sacred. It is incredible that a man who has heard Philip and the two Apostles and has seen what they have done should make such a proposal! The whole idea is preposterous.
Simon is the kind of man who has seen true faith, knows about it, wonders at it, but does not possess it. These are sad cases.
Peter condemns him roundly. Both he and his money will perish. He has no part in the kingdom of God. His heart is not right with God. May Peter judge the heart? Of course—“by their fruits ye shall know them.” He tells him to repent. How does one do that without having the Spirit of God? Don’t let theology get in the way of a perfectly normal command. “You are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity!” Your sin is indescribable! It is horrible. Pray for forgiveness—perhaps it will be forgiven. Why the “perhaps”? Peter does not know whether there is forgiveness for a sin such as this! Is it not against the Spirit?
Simon does not pray for himself but asks that the Apostles pray for him so that he may not receive his due punishment.
Peter had dealt differently with Ananias and Sapphira. But, remember, those were of the house of Israel, while Simon is out of heathendom.
Questions for discussion:
l. Was the flight of believers from Jerusalem a blessing for the church? 2. Do the Apostles do right by staying in Jerusalem? 3 . Is the missionary work now taken out of the hands of the twelve? 4 . Does the fact that Philip was both a deacon and evangelist have anything to say to us? 5. Was Philip’s preaching and baptizing adequate? Why did the Apostles have to come? 6. Was it a great advantage to the church that one like Simon joined them? 7 . In how far should religious services be “paid for”? Is “simony” still a danger?