Acts, Part 14
Notes
Transcript
35 “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years.
The style of Stephen’s speech changes at v. 35. The treatment of Israel’s history becomes more direct; the themes are applied with less subtlety. Even though continuing his survey in a more or less straight chronological fashion, the lessons of Israel’s history are more explicitly drawn. Verses 35–38 treat the Exodus and wilderness period, with the emphasis not on the history but the person of Moses. Verses 39–43 deal with the apostasy in the wilderness, with the emphasis on the judgment of God. Verses 44–50 deal with the entrance into the promised land and lead up to the time of Solomon and concentrate on the temple as an example of Israel’s apostasy.
7:35–36 With the emphasis on Moses himself, his relation to Christ was more explicitly drawn. Stephen reminded his hearers of the Israelites’ rejection of his role as “ruler and judge” over them. They denied Moses, but God “sent” him (v. 35). It is a familiar pattern that already has appeared frequently in Peter’s speeches with reference to Christ —Israel rejected him, but God affirmed him.
The comparison to Christ becomes even stronger in the reference to Moses as “deliverer/redeemer” of Israel. It is the only occurrence in Luke-Acts of the noun “redeemer” (lytrōtēs); but the verbal form, “the one who was going to redeem Israel,” is applied to Christ in Luke 24:21. The word “redeemer” is virtually equivalent to “Savior”, and the comparison to Christ is unmistakable. Moses was a type of Christ. Both were sent by God to deliver Israel. Both were denied, rejected by those they were sent to save. But the likeness does not end there. Moses performed “wonders and miraculous signs” in Egypt, the Red Sea, and in the wilderness (v. 36). The reference is surely to the plagues in Egypt, the parting of the waters, and the many miracles in the wilderness; but one cannot fail to remember how Jesus also performed signs and wonders and that he had granted the same power to his apostles through his name .
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.’
38 This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.
7:37–38 More than a foreshadowing of Christ took place with Moses. He predicted the coming of Christ, the prophet like himself whom God would raise up (v. 37). This prophecy (Deut 18:1) has already served as a major Christological proof in Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade. With all these obvious overtones of Moses’ likeness to Christ in vv. 35–37, one cannot help wondering whether they do not carry over into v. 38 with the references to Moses’ being with the “assembly” in the wilderness and to his giving “living words” to the Israelites. The word for assembly, ekklēsia, is the normal word used in the Septuagint for the gathered community of Israel. The term also is one Christians used for their own assembly, the church. It is hard to resist the comparison between Moses standing in the assembly of Israel, mediating between the Israelites and the angel of God, and the presence of Christ in his church fulfilling the same role.
The reference to “living words” denotes the law Moses received on Mt. Sinai. Is there an implicit comparison to the gospel, the word that ultimately brings life (cf. 5:20)? The tradition that Moses received the law through the mediation of angels is not found explicitly in the Old Testament, but it is found elsewhere among New Testament writers. Paul used this to argue the inferiority of the law: it did not come directly from God but was mediated through angels. This was not the case with Stephen. He did not in any sense criticize the law in any part of his speech. The angelic presence only serves to enhance the law and its status as the “living words” of God. The role of Moses was strictly positive. He was the God-sent redeemer for Israel, the worker of signs and wonders, the one who transmitted the living words of God. As such he was a type of Christ. Also like Christ, he was rejected by his people.
39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt,
40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’
41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.
7:39–41 In this section Stephen highlighted Israel’s apostasy in the wilderness, particularly as illustrated by the golden calf. Just as the single Israelite had pushed Moses aside in his attempt to mediate (v. 27), now in the wilderness the entire nation refused to obey him and pushed him aside (“rejected,” v. 39). “In their hearts” they turned to Egypt. It was an inward turning to the ways of Egypt, their minds already set on other gods (cf. Ezek 20:8). Stephen directly quoted Exod 32:1, where the people asked Aaron to make them gods. As for Moses, they did not know what happened to him (v. 40). Compare v. 25, where the Israelites are said not to have understood that God was using Moses to rescue them. They committed the same sin of ignorance in the wilderness: To reject God’s messenger is to reject God. It was ultimately a lack of faith. So they made a golden calf, offered a sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in this work of their own hands.68
In summarizing the text of Exod 32:4–6, Stephen emphasized certain points. The calf is described as an “idol” and as something made with their own hands. Here he was being faithful to the prophetic tradition that often criticized idolatry as the work of human hands. The term will recur with reference to the temple in v. 48. Here Stephen already was moving in the direction of his temple critique. Already in the wilderness the people along with Aaron the priest were moving in the direction of the distortion of the pure worship of God, which marked the temple of Stephen’s day.
42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: “ ‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices, during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
7:42 Verse 42 describes how God handled the apostasy in the wilderness. God “gave them over” to their own desires. In Rom 1:24–28 Paul used the same word in a similar context of idolatry to describe how God “gave over” the Gentiles to such works of their hands and how this led to all kinds of sinful distortions. It is perhaps the most fearful judgment of all when God turns us over to ourselves and lets our own rebellious ways take their destructive natural course.
43 You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan, the images that you made to worship; and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’
7:43 It was so for the Israelites in the wilderness, said Stephen. Their idolatrous calf led to the worship of the heavenly bodies, the gods of sun and moon and stars. The reference to such astral worship may not have been the main subject Stephen wished to treat, but it was part of the text from Amos which he wanted to cite, a text which established the idolatrous practices of Israel in the wilderness. The text is that of Amos 5:25–27, which is quoted from the Septuagint version and is introduced as coming from “the book of the prophets,” the customary Jewish designation for the twelve Minor Prophets, who are collected together in a single book in the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagintal version of Amos 5:25–27 differs considerably from the Hebrew version, and the references to the “shrine of Moloch” and the “star of your god Rephan” are difficult. However, the main point Stephen wished to draw from the passage is clear: “Did you bring me sacrifices … in the desert, O house of Israel?” (v. 42, italics mine). Stephen’s implication was that they made sacrifices all right, to golden calves and heavenly bodies and the like, but not to God. Their wilderness days were days of apostasy. The result of the original apostasy of Israel was ultimately exile. God sent them “beyond Babylon.” Is there an implicit suggestion that his contemporaries could expect little better themselves if they did not turn from the same apostasy and rejection of God’s appointed Christ?
44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen.
45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David,
46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.
47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him.
48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
49 “ ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?
50 Did not my hand make all these things?’
7:44–50 The final segment of Stephen’s argument section begins with a reference to the “tabernacle of the Testimony,” which seems to have little connection with the preceding, except for the words “tent” and “type” of v. 44 also being found in the preceding quote from Amos. A much closer connection, however, revolves around the emphasis on rejection, idolatry, and false worship, which were the main subjects of the wilderness section of the speech. They are still the subject in this section, but here the focus begins to narrow to a particular object of the false worship and rejection: namely, on the temple.
Verse 44 continues in the historical framework of the wilderness period. In the wilderness Israel’s house of worship was a tent, the tent of the testimony. “Testimony” referred to the stone tablets of the law that were kept in the ark in the tabernacle. Now the tabernacle was provided by God. It was made precisely according to his guidelines, according to the pattern he laid down for Moses. The tabernacle remained the place of worship after the conquest under Joshua, and it remained in the land, passed down from generation to generation until the time of David (v. 45).
Everything seems to have been well as long as the tabernacle existed. A shift seems to have taken place with the mention of David’s desire to build a “dwelling place” in v. 46. Who was this dwelling place for? A major textual problem occurs at this point, some manuscripts reading “a dwelling place for the house of Jacob,” others, “a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.” The NIV has chosen to follow the latter reading, but even the reading “house of Jacob” probably implies the same thing—a dwelling place (for God) for the house of Jacob (to worship him in). David only made the request. He did not build a temple. Second Samuel 7:1–17 tells the story of how God answered David’s request through the prophet Nathan: God was perfectly content with the tabernacle; he did not want a house of cedar from David, but he would raise up a successor to David who would build such a house. Solomon was that successor who built “a house” for God (v. 47). Stephen implied that all the trouble began here, for he immediately stated “the Most High does not live in houses made by men” (v. 48a) and backed this up with a quote from Isa 66:1f., which delineates the folly of building a house for the Creator-God who has all heaven and earth for his dwelling place (vv. 49–50).
Scholarship is sharply divided over whether Stephen completely rejected the temple or whether he was offering a prophetic critique. In light of the overall picture of the temple in Luke-Acts and even in Stephen’s speech itself, the latter seems the more likely. The theme of worshiping God in this place (i.e., in the Jerusalem temple) is set forth quite positively in the beginning of Stephen’s speech (v. 7). The emphasis, however, is on the worship—not the “place” of worship. Stephen did not reject the temple as such but the abuse of the temple, which made it into something other than a place for offering worship to God. His view is thus closely linked to that of Jesus, who also attacked the abuses of the temple cult and stressed its true purpose of being a “house of prayer” (Luke 19:46).
The particular abuse that Stephen addressed was the use of the temple to restrict, confine, and ultimately to try to manipulate God. This seems to have been the significance in his contrast between the tabernacle in vv. 44–46 and the temple in vv. 47–48. The tabernacle was designed (v. 44) and approved by God. It was a “dwelling place” for God, but not a “house” of God. It is the concept of “house” to which Stephen objected. As a “house” the temple was conceived as a man-made edifice in which God was confined: “This is his house—here and nowhere else.”
Stephen’s reference to its being “made by men” (v. 48, literally, “hand-made”) connects directly with the golden calf in the wilderness (v. 41) and is an implicit charge of idolatry. When a place of worship becomes a representation for God himself, it becomes a substitute for a living relationship to God. The man-made “house” is worshiped, not the living God; and that is idolatry. This seems to have been the point Stephen was driving at in his whole speech. God cannot be confined to one place or people. Israel’s history demonstrates that. God revealed himself to Abraham in Mesopotamia, far from Jerusalem and its temple; indeed, the promises to Israel began there. He revealed himself to Moses not on Mt. Zion but in the wilderness of Mt. Sinai. His great act of deliverance for his people was set in Egypt, a foreign land. The tabernacle was the prototype of the true worship of God; for it symbolized God’s movement with his people, a pilgrim people on the move, not tied down to land or place.
The concluding quotation from Isa 66:1f. caps off the entire argument. God is transcendent. He cannot be restricted to any “house,” where one can say, “This is where God is to be found.” He is Creator of heaven and earth, and his presence is to be found in all his creation. Solomon himself was well aware of this, that his temple could scarcely contain the God of heaven and earth (1 Kgs 8:27). The temple was to be a house for Israel, not for God, a place for Israel to express their devotion to God. Stephen’s critique was that it had become something else—not a house for Israel’s worship but a house for God, a place where Israel sought to imprison their God and manipulate him according to their own concerns.
Stephen was a reformer, standing in a long line of prophets who criticized Israel’s tendency to substitute man-made institutions for a living relationship to God. Had he “blasphemed” the temple as he was charged? Certainly not. Had he predicted its destruction? Probably so. Likely the most accurate of the Jewish charges leveled at Stephen’s teaching on the temple was the reference to his propounding Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction (6:14; cf. Mark 13:2). Standing in the line of his Master’s prophetic critique, Stephen saw that the temple of his day had become something other than a house of prayer. It had become a symbol of Jewish exclusivism and a rallying place for Jewish nationalism. Unless it recovered its true purpose as a house of prayer and devotion, it was ultimately doomed. As a Jew, Stephen offered a prophetic critique of the temple abuse. As a Christian he was convinced that Israel would never find its true relationship to God, its true worship, apart from the Messiah, as the following verses (vv. 51–53) make clear. Tragically, his contemporaries heeded neither Stephen’s temple critique nor his witness to the Messiah. The temple became more and more a seedbed of nationalism, the place where revolutionary movements began. Eventually this led to war with their Roman overlords, which resulted in their utter defeat. The Romans reduced the temple to rubble in a.d. 70; not one stone was left on another. The warnings of Jesus and of Stephen had not been heard.
51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,
53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
7:51–53 The final portion of Stephen’s speech could be described in classical rhetorical terms as the “peroration,” where the speaker applies the lessons learned from the previous material in his speech in a direct, frequently emotional appeal to his hearers to act. The aim was to secure their awareness of their own culpability in these matters and motivate them to take remedial action. It is an ancient form of argumentation found in both Greek rhetoric and Hebrew prophecy. The function of the peroration of Stephen’s speech was not simply to malign his Jewish audience. In Christian terms his ultimate goal was their remedial action, their repentance.
The polemical nature of these verses is immediately evident in Stephen’s switch from first to second person. Before now, Stephen had included himself in his references to the Jews. It was always “our fathers” (cf. vv. 19, 38, 39, 44). Now it was “your fathers.” It was no longer a question of Jewish history with which Stephen identified but a direct personal appeal to his hearers. Using the language of the prophets, he accused them of being “stiff-necked …, with uncircumcised hearts and ears,” always resisting the Holy Spirit (v. 51). His entire historical sketch has illustrated this point, the consistent pattern on Israel’s part of rejecting its leaders. Stephen, who was “filled with the Spirit” (6:3, 5), had already experienced their resistance (6:10). He would experience it in this instance as well (7:55–58). He reminded them of how they had always resisted and even killed their prophets—the very ones who in the Spirit spoke the words of the Lord. More significantly these very prophets were the ones who predicted the coming of the Messiah (cf. 3:18, 24). Stephen referred to the Messiah as the “Righteous One,” a term already employed by Peter in his temple sermon (3:14). Indeed, the linkages between the two sermons are even closer still, for Peter likewise accused his Jewish hearers of having betrayed and murdered the Righteous One (3:14–15).
The whole purpose of Stephen’s speech now becomes clear. His historical survey had illustrated Israel’s constant rejection of God’s chosen leaders. Moses, Joseph, the prophets are all types of and pointers to Christ; and Stephen pointed out to his hearers that they had already rejected and killed him. Is this a final condemnation? One is reminded of Peter’s temple sermon with all its resemblances to this portion of Stephen’s speech. For Peter it was not a final condemnation, but the door remained open to repent and receive the Christ at his second coming (3:19–21). Stephen already had shown how deliverance came for Israel on their second encounters with Joseph and Moses. Was there not an implicit second chance offered to his hearers here? Was Stephen making an appeal for them to take the needed remedial steps to their apostasy and repent?
Summary. It has often been stated that Stephen’s speech does not address the charge that had been leveled against him, that of blasphemy against the temple and the law. Already we have seen that Stephen gave considerable attention to the temple charge. In effect, he turned back that charge on his accusers. They were the guilty parties in turning the temple into an object for human manipulation and distorting its true purpose of prayer and worship. He did virtually the same with the charge of blasphemy against the law. In his speech he never once criticized the law. He gave only positive treatment of its provisions, such as circumcision (v. 8), and described it as “living words” (v. 38). No, it was not he but his Jewish accusers who were the real lawbreakers (v. 53). They were the apostates and idolaters who had constantly transgressed the first Commandments.
Overall one gets the impression that Stephen realized his defense was a lost cause from the start. He would never secure his acquittal without compromising his convictions. He determined to use the situation as one last opportunity to share those convictions, one last chance to appeal to his Jewish contemporaries to abandon their pattern of rejection and accept the Messiah God had sent them. This is why Luke made constant reference to his being filled with the Spirit (cf. Luke 21:12–15). It took courage and inspiration to do what he did. Ultimately his speech was not a defense at all but a witness.
54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him.
55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
7:54–55 Whether Stephen intended to give a direct appeal for his hearers to repent we will never know, for they abruptly broke him off. They were absolutely livid at Stephen’s placing them on trial. Luke described their rage in terms of their being “cut to the heart” (dieprionto, cf. 5:33) and “grinding their teeth” (cf. Ps 35:16). Stephen’s response to their rage certainly did nothing to assuage it. Looking into heaven, he had the beatific vision; he beheld the glory of the heavenly throne room and Jesus standing at God’s right hand (v. 55).
56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
7:56 Having first given this vision in narrative form, Luke underlined its importance by repeating it in direct discourse, as Stephen shared the experience with the infuriated Sanhedrin: “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” Jesus had spoken similar words at his own appearance before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:69), and what had been a prediction on his part became a reality for Stephen. Jesus is indeed now risen and exalted to his position of authority at God’s right hand. The vision confirmed Stephen’s testimony. His messianic claims for Jesus were verified in his vision of the exalted Son of Man. Significantly, Stephen referred to him as “the Son of Man,” not simply as “Jesus,” as in the narrative of v. 55. This is the only instance in the New Testament where the term is spoken by another than Jesus himself. Even more striking is the reference to his standing. Generally the reference is to his being seated at God’s right hand, as in Luke 22:69. Scholarly opinion differs about the significance of the uncharacteristic standing position in Stephen’s speech. Some see no significance other than a variation in expression. Others see it as a reference to Christ having risen from his seat to welcome the martyr Stephen.
The view with the most far-reaching implications, however, is that Stephen’s vision links up with the original Son of Man vision in Dan 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is depicted as standing before the Ancient of Days. The primary role of the Danielic Son of Man was that of judgment, and the New Testament consistently depicts Christ in this role of eschatological judge (cf. Matt 25:31–46). The standing position may thus depict the exalted Christ in his role of judge. If so, Stephen’s vision not only confirmed his testimony, but it showed Christ rising to render judgment on his accusers. They, not he, were the guilty parties. In Dan 7:14 the Son of Man was given dominion over “all peoples, nations, and men of every language.” If this is a further implication of Stephen’s Son of Man vision, it ties in well with his understanding of God as not being bound to one nation or people. It is a vision of the boundless reign of Christ, which was soon to begin with the Samaritan mission of Stephen’s fellow Hellenist Philip.
57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him.
58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.
7:57–59 One can understand the furious response in the Sanhedrin at Stephen’s testimony to his vision (v. 57). If he indeed had such a vision, they stood condemned. There was only one conclusion they could draw. Stephen was lying, claiming to have a vision of God. It was blasphemy! They put their fingers in their ears to shut out his words lest God come and consume them for listening to such blasphemy (v. 57). Screaming, they descended violently on him, threw him outside the city gates, and began to stone him. There was a certain irony in their action. Out of concern for the sanctity of the city, they performed their unholy deed outside its bounds. It has often been debated whether Stephen was “lynched” or condemned by formal verdict of the Sanhedrin, for which stoning was one of the chief manners of execution. In favor of the latter is the fact that Stephen was on trial before the Sanhedrin and was killed by stoning. Luke’s account, however, gives more the picture of mob action. There is also the question of whether the Sanhedrin had the legal right to carry out capital sentences during the Roman period. The evidence seems to indicate that they did not (cf. John 18:31). Also the picture of Stephen’s stoning does not fit what is known of Jewish execution by stoning. According to the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6:1–6, stoning took place outside the city and the actual stoning was done by those who had witnessed against the condemned person.
These details fit the present scene, but they are about all that does. In formal stonings victims were stripped and pushed over a cliff ten- to twelve-feet high. They were then rolled over on their chests, and the first witness pushed a boulder (as large a stone as he could manage) from the cliff above. In the unlikely event the victim survived this first smashing, the second witness was to roll a second boulder from above. The picture of Stephen’s stoning is radically different. He was not stripped. The witnesses stripped, evidently to give them greater freedom for throwing. It is doubtful Stephen could have knelt or uttered prayers after being pounded by a huge boulder from ten feet above. The picture in Acts is of an angry mob pelting Stephen with stones. His death was not instantaneous as was the case with Jewish executions. Whether the Sanhedrin participated in Stephen’s “lynching” is another question. A later incident when Paul faced the Sanhedrin shows that body was not beyond forsaking decorum when sufficiently aroused (23:10).
59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
7:59–60 Stephen died as only one who was “full of the Holy Spirit” could (v. 55). He seems to have consciously followed the pattern of his Master as he faced his own death. His last words, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” echoed those Jesus prayed from the cross. This was the same basic commitment of his life to his Lord that Jesus made to the Father in his own dying moments (Luke 23:46). There is a certain trusting innocence in these dying words of Stephen and of Jesus. The words are an ancient Jewish prayer, based on Ps 31:5, which children were taught to pray at bedtime. “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” reminds us of Jesus’ prayer for the forgiveness of those who crucified him (Luke 23:34). And so Stephen “fell asleep,” perhaps in fulfillment of his prayer in v. 59. The early Christians often used the concept of “sleep” for death, a confession of their assurance of resurrection. No one ever died with greater assurance than Stephen. He fell asleep with the vision of his risen Lord at God’s right hand still fresh on his mind.
