Witnesses of the Truth

As we step back into our study of Acts today, let’s remind ourselves what Acts is all about. At the beginning of the book, just before Jesus ascended into heaven, his disciples asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). To “restore the kingdom to Israel” is what the disciples of Jesus expected that he, as Messiah, would do.

Jesus’s answer in the next verse goes like this: “It is not for you to know times or season that the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). So, is that a “yes” or a “no”?

It is a misreading of this interchange between Jesus and his disciples to think that Jesus is dismissing the question. “Boys, boys, are you still hung up on that Jewish hope about the kingdom of God through Israel here on earth? Don’t you know that I came to do something altogether different, you know, make it possible for you to go to the kingdom of God up there in heaven one day?”

No, no, no. Christianity is not telling a story different or offering a different hope than the one that the story of Israel in the Old Testament is telling. The long speech of Stephen in Acts 7 ought to remind us of that fact.

But what Jesus goes on to say is this. “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). And that is how Jesus is going to “restore the kingdom to Israel.” That is what the book of Acts is all about: the spread of the gospel (through Jesus’s Spirit-empowered witnesses) and the transformation of the world.

Today’s passage tells us about one of those spirit-empowered witnesses. A man named Stephen.

As we look at this passage, what we come to find out is that there is a dichotomy that emerges. Two competing witnesses. Two testimonies about what is true. Which is right? Which is wrong? One commentator calls this passage “a battle of witnesses.”[1] And although it is clear that Stephen’s witness is presented as the true one, our challenge today is to see exactly what it is Stephen is giving his testimony about.

After all, Stephen is the first believer in Jesus to give his life for his faith. He is the first Christian martyr, but the word martyrcomes from the Greek word for “witness.” It is because of Stephen that we have come to see that to be one of Jesus’s true witnesses is to put your life at risk. So, if we’re going to risk our life for Jesus, we had better be sure we are being true witnesses of Jesus. What Stephen shows us is this: those who witness to the truth of Jesus are those who see in Jesus the realization of what God has promised to his people.

Let’s see in our passage today the false witness against Stephen, the true witness of Stephen, and the divine witness from Stephen.

The False Witness Against Stephen

So, first, the false witness against Stephen, in Acts 6:8-15.

The Offense of Stephen

We start with the simple observation that there was something about Stephen that was offensive, offensive enough to put his life in jeopardy. What was it?

It certainly wasn’t his character. Stephen was one of seven men, nominated by his Christian brothers and sisters, to oversee the church’s ministry to the Greek-speaking widows. He was chosen because he was a man with a good reputation, Acts 6:3 says. He is described as “full of the Spirit and wisdom.” Whatever it was that got Stephen killed, it was not because he was a jerk. Witnesses of the truth ought to care greatly about their character and their reputation. Character is important to our witness.

Here in verse 8, we are told that Stephen was “full of grace and power,” and that he “was doing great wonders and signs among the people.” That statement in itself is vague; Luke doesn’t want us to focus on knowing more about what these “wonders and signs” were. The important point is that Stephen is described in this way to indicate that he was particularly gifted by God. He stood out. He got people’s attention. Some people are like that; most of us, by definition, are not like that. But it wasn’t because Stephen was extraordinarily gifted that he was offensive either.

To see what was so offensive about Stephen we need to consider who it was that got so offended at him.

The Synagogue of the Freedmen

Luke tells us, in verse 9, that some members of a particular synagogue there in Jerusalem “rose up and disputed with Stephen.” The synagogue was called “the synagogue of the Freedmen,” and was also known by the provinces from which many of its members had come from. What verse 9 tells us is that Stephen was opposed by other Hellenists like himself, by other Greek-speaking Jews.

So, the problem with Stephen was something of an internal squabble. Something about Stephen was offensive to certain people who were very similar to him. The squabble was not over something different between Stephen and his opponents, as if they were coming from very different cultures and assumptions, talking about two completely different worldviews and perspectives. The squabble was over something very, very similar. The people who were offended at Stephen were people who saw things in much the same way that he did.

The internal nature of the disagreement is delineated in verses 13-14 and essentially comes down to two things. Stephen is accused of speaking against “this holy place and the law.” The issue of disagreement comes down to temple and torah. The accusation is that Stephen is against the temple and that he is advocating some adjustment to the torah.

Stephen is, of course, what we would now call a Christian. He is one of us, or rather we are of the same faith as him. But most Christians today aren’t going to be considered offensive because of our views of temple or torah, but that’s because we have forgotten what Christianity has to do with such things. We have thought that Christianity was something other than what such important Jewish symbols as the temple and the law of Moses were all about. Unless we can see what the Christianity that Stephen proclaimed was claiming from within the Jewish story, we will probably not get the sense of what is so offensive about what Stephen was saying.

And the problem with that is that we will think of Christian witness, indeed even of Christian martyrdom, in quite different terms than what we see in Stephen’s witness.

True and False Witnesses

Luke sets up the whole episode in such a way that we know Stephen is right. He is the true witness. We are supposed to believe him. His character and his conduct are unimpeachable. And verse 10 is a deliberate echo of what Luke records Jesus saying in Luke’s Gospel. In Luke 21:15, Jesus promises his disciples “a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.” There is no doubt Luke wants us to Stephen in this light.[2]

And when, in verse 15, Luke says that as Stephen is put on trial before the Jewish authorities, all who looked at him “saw that his face was like the face of an angel,” he is reminding us of Moses’s shining face after he encountered God on Mt. Sinai, so that we ought to pay close attention to Stephen’s testimony if we are to know what the Christian witness is really all about.[3]

There’s one more obvious signal Luke has sent us. The presence of false witnesses called in to testify against Stephen might well remind us of the same feature in Jesus’s own trial (Matt 26:59). Indeed, so much of Stephen’s story—as we will see—echoes the story of Jesus himself. It is Stephen and his testimony that we best pay attention to and had best align ourselves with.

The True Witness of Stephen

Stephen’s trial begins as he is given the opportunity by the high priest to defend himself. He is asked “Are these things so?” What does he have to say about the accusations leveled against him? And so, Stephen begins his testimony, his witness. Here is the true witness of Stephen, in Acts 7:1-50.

The Story of Israel

What does he do? What does he say? He tells the story of Israel, doesn’t he? He talks about Abraham, about Joseph and Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. He mentions Joshua and David and Solomon. Why? What is he doing here? He’s talking to his own people, reminding them of their shared story. He’s identifying with them. His testimony is about the same thing they care about.

Once more we make the observation that it is those who share so many of the same basic convictions that often oppose the true witness. Perhaps it is not the opposition of non-Christians that ought to concern us so much as it is the opposition that may well come from those who claim to be Christians. Also once more, we stress the point that the earliest Christians saw their faith from within the Jewish story. So, then, should we if we want to make sure we are seeing it correctly.

The Jewish story really gets going with Abraham, which is where Stephen begins as well. It’s all about Abraham and what God had promised to him. It’s all there, in verse 5. God promised to give Abraham a certain piece of land, a land in which his offspring would come and live in and worship God in. That promise is what sustains the story of Israel down through a very long passage of time. After Abraham’s descendants lived in Egypt for some four centuries, verse 17 says that “the time of the promise drew near.” And then comes the story of Moses and the Exodus and the journey toward the Promised Land. The story of Israel is all about what God had promised to do for his people in this world. The Exodus story is at the heart of Jewish hope. And Stephen shares in that hope. Remember: Stephen was introduced to us as one who would help lead a real revolution when it came to how the poor and marginalized would be given justice in the world right now.

What Stephen is doing then is making his testimony from within the same story or worldview as that of his opponents. So, what’s the problem? What is it in Stephen’s testimony that separates himself from his opponents?

Unbelieving Israel

Surely no one is able to take issue with Stephen’s retelling of the story. All throughout he speaks about quite well-known aspects of the Jewish (Old Testament) story. But the tension points are already there in that well-known story.

There is Abraham and “the covenant of circumcision.” But what if someone who is biologically part of the Abrahamic family refuses to take on that covenant sign? To remain uncircumcised would be to put yourself at odds with the promise God made to Abraham. So, there is already even within Israel at least the possibility of two sides: the circumcised and the uncircumcised.

And then there is Joseph, over against his own brothers, the other patriarchs of Israel. They were jealous of him and “sold him into Egypt; but God was with Joseph and make him “ruler over Egypt.” Again, two sides within Israel.

And what about Moses? He was the one God had sent to give salvation to Israel in bondage in Egypt, but his brothers did not understand this and said, “Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?” Again, two sides within Israel. God’s salvation was found on one of those two sides.

Even after the Exodus, Stephen reminds his opponents in verse 39, “Our fathers refused to obey [Moses], but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt” and demanded that Aaron make for them a golden calf, an idol that they could worship. Again, two sides, one side the true witness, the other side the false, and idolatrous one from within Israel.

What is Stephen doing? He is not so much defending himself as going on the offensive. He is not pleading for his innocence but rather making a plea for the truth.[4] His concern is not whether or not he is innocent but whether or not he is telling the story truthfully.

The Truth about Moses and the Temple

Remember that the accusation against Stephen concerns how he views Moses, how he views torah and the temple. So, Stephen addresses that issue within the story itself. What is it that the Israel story has been saying all along about Moses and the temple?

It was Moses himself who said that the promise that was given to Abraham had not in fact reached its fulfillment just yet. Moses said, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers” (Acts 7:37). Stephen makes the point that since “our fathers refused to obey [Moses], but thrust him aside” (v. 39), it seems altogether possible that when this new prophet shows up, the same thing will happen to him. Even though God had given “living oracles” to his people, they turned to idolatrous practices instead. Don’t be surprised if those who claim to be God’s people end up doing the same thing.

What about the temple? Stephen speaks to that at the end of his speech (vv. 44-50), saying that even Solomon recognized that the temple could only be a sign of something so much bigger, something so much greater than the physical structure that human hands could build. It was not those who spoke against the physical temple in Jerusalem that were against the temple, but those who would oppose the true temple that God himself would one day start to build.

The Divine Witness from Stephen

So, a line has been drawn, a line that separates the true from the false witnesses. Stephen now drives the point home, starting in Acts 7:51. He makes his point about which side God himself is on, which side he is on, which side you and I must be on if we wish to be witnesses of the truth in our own day. Luke contends that what Stephen says is what God himself says. This is the divine witness from Stephen.

Resistors of the Holy Spirit

First, those who are on the side of truth are those who do not resist the Holy Spirit, as Stephen says his opponents were doing. God’s Spirit is on the move—the book of Acts is eagerly showing us this—and we must not resist what God’s Spirit is doing.

How do we know if we are resisting the Holy Spirit? Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit came, he would give testimony about Jesus (Jn 15:26). So, this is what Jesus’s disciples must do as well. Our message is this: that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s Righteous One (v. 52) in whom and through whom all hope can be found. Witnesses of the truth must not give any hint, in character and conduct, nor of course in conversation, that there is any other way. It’s not Jesus and money, Jesus and power, Jesus and the various philosophies of the world. It is Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Only Jesus.

Of course, it is easy enough for Christians to say, “Amen” to this. But notice where Stephen’s witness about Christ took him. It infuriated his opponents—who again, were coming at life through the same worldview as he was—verse 54 says “they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him.” Things were getting violent, but Stephen, “full of the Holy Spirit,” we are told in verse 55, had the audacity to say what he saw: “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” To say that it is Jesus who holds heaven and earth together and not anyone or anything else, well, this is what got him killed.

The Offer of Forgiveness

But even in his dying, we read in verses 59-60, Stephen remained a witness of the truth. He entrusted his whole life to the Lord Jesus, no matter what it cost him. And it cost him everything.

But we know Stephen was a witness of the truth, not least because of his words in verse 60, echoing the words of Jesus himself on the cross: “Do not hold this sin against them.” Forgive them. Those are the words of those who witness for the truth.

They remain powerful words, don’t they? Christians should recognize the power of those words, when Erika Kirk uttered them at her husband’s memorial service. Christians should also recognize the decidedly anti-Christian words uttered by the President shortly thereafter:

[Charlie Kirk] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry Erika.[5]

It is clear which side of that line the Lord Jesus and his faithful witnesses must be on.

Hope for the False Witnesses

There is indeed a battle of the witnesses going on here. In verse 58, we are told that “the witnesses,” and now we know they are the false witnesses, “laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.” Luke, as a great storyteller of history, has here subtly introduced us to one of the most consequential persons in the history of Christianity: Saul of Tarsus. Tarsus was the capital city of the province of Cilicia. No doubt Saul was a member of the synagogue of the Freedman, and that is why he was there at the moment Stephen was martyred.

He was there, approving of his execution, Acts 8:1 says. He was there, “ravaging the church” afterward, Acts 8:3 says. Thinking of course that he was on the right side, confident he was standing up for the truth.

Until he had his own encounter with the crucified and risen Jesus.

But no doubt the seed was planted for that amazing and world-changing encounter by the Spirit-inspired forgiveness that Stephen extended to him with his final breath.

Witnesses of the truth are called to offer the same hope, the same gracious gift, to even the sincerest of false witnesses among us today. Yes, even if it costs them their lives.

_____

[1] Ben Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 258.

[2] As C. K. Barrett (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton [London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004], 1:325) says, "The coincidence in language can hardly be accidental.”

[3] Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 259.

[4] C. C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, cited in Witherington, III, The Acts of the Apostles, 258.

[5] Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47), post on X, “https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1969898336183373937” (accessed January 11, 2026).