Acts 6 Part 2
Sermon • Submitted • Presented • 42:10
0 ratings
· 5 viewsFiles
Notes
Transcript
Handout
1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. 7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Throughout history, many churches in the Southern United States were resistant to the Civil Rights Movement, yet notable exceptions emerged. In the 1960s, some white congregations actively supported Martin Luther King Jr. and joined protests. The efforts of these courageous believers highlight a critical historical lesson: the church has a responsibility to combat discrimination proactively, rather than remaining silent or passive. This moment in history serves as a call to contemporary believers to ensure their faith leads to action against discrimination today.
Last week we finished with Apostles teaching and preaching Jesus Christ daily in the temple and in every house they were invited.
42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
Because of how the Apostle responded to the suffering they received at the end of Acts 5, what do we see happening to the church in Acts 6:1?
It multiplied. The growth continued to grow exponentially despite the oppression of the Sanhedrin on the Apostles and the church. Not only religious oppression, but also Roman oppression.
What problem arises in Acts 6:1?
There was discrimination in the church.
What two groups of people were involved?
There are two major groups here that are mentioned.
First being the Grecians or rather Hellenistic jews.
Second are the Hebraic Jews.
What is a Hellenistic Jew?
These are Jews who were Greek-speaking and refers to Jews who practiced Judaism and largely adopted the Greek language and culture.
These Jews would have widely used the Septuagint.
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek between 250–100 B.C.[1], though the translation process occurred in stages rather than all at once. The Torah (Pentateuch) was translated in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II, completed around 250 B.C.[2] The remaining Old Testament books—including Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Prophets, and Psalms—were gradually translated over the following two centuries, with these additions occurring between 170–132 B.C.[2] The Wisdom of Solomon, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and various apocryphal works (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and others) were added in the late 2nd or early 1st century B.C.[2]
The translation emerged from a practical need: Jews living in Alexandria had become so assimilated that they no longer spoke Hebrew and could no longer read the Hebrew Scriptures.[3] While the Letter of Aristeas claims that 72 Jewish scholars translated the Pentateuch in 72 days on the island of Pharos, scholars have questioned some of its details.[1] This account is actually a legend—a Jewish propagandist tract written between 145 and 100 B.C., with most scholars accepting 100 B.C. as the probable date of composition.[2] Modern scholarship generally believes the translation took place over a long period of time and culminated not long before the Christian era.[4]
[1] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2004), 194.
[2] Antonía Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 67.
[3] David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien, 1990), 37.
[4] Eugene E. Carpenter, “Introduction to the Old Testament,” in Asbury Bible Commentary, ed. Eugene E. Carpenter and Wayne McCown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2022). [See here.]
What is a Hebraic Jew?
These are Jews who were born in Judah and were inhabitants of the country, primarily Jerusalem. They spoke Hebrew and largely did not adopt the Greek language or culture.
Faithlife Study Bible Chapter 6
the Hebraic Jews Refers to Jews who have not widely adopted Greek language or culture.
This group primarily spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, and although they may have spoken Greek too, they remained fundamentally Jewish in their lifestyle. The antagonism between these two groups is likely rooted in the Hebraic Jews viewing other Jews with suspicion—seeing them as not purely Jewish or as compromisers of their identity. This antagonism represents an obstacle to the early church’s goal of becoming a new expression of humanity, united in Christ rather than divided along ethnic or social lines (compare
The issue arises that these Hebraic Jews were probably looking down on the Hellenistic Jews as inferrior for embracing Greek culture. They would often view those who adopted Greek culture or any other culture as compromisers of their identity and not pure Jews.
What was the standard custom for caring for widows in the ancient world?
Family would care for them.
What was the daily ministration?
Food.
Faithlife Study Bible Chapter 6
widows In the ancient Near East, widows often could not survive unless immediate family members provided for them (compare
In the ancient world, caring for widows and elderly parents fell primarily on family members rather than public institutions. The Roman Empire had no public welfare systems or state provision for widows[1], and legal requirements for relatives to support widows did not exist until the second century CE[1]. Instead, a reciprocal moral expectation governed such care—just as parents raised their children, adult children were obligated to support aging parents, a principle embodied in the Greek virtue of eusebeia and Roman pietas[1].
This reciprocal obligation was deeply embedded in ancient Mediterranean culture. Widows without personal resources typically depended on adult children, with many emphasizing that children should repay their parents for raising them by providing support in old age[2]. Greek law from Solon’s time made filial support not merely a moral duty but a legal one—those who refused lost their civil rights[3]. Ancient philosophers and writers universally stressed this obligation: Demosthenes condemned those who neglected parents as “unbelieving” and “hateful to the gods,” while Aristotle argued that adult children should starve before allowing their parents to do so[3].
However, this system created vulnerability. Since widow care was a private family matter, whether a widow received help depended on whether her children survived, possessed means to help her, and had internalized their reciprocal obligations[1]. As many as 30 percent of women in the ancient world were widows[4], and many lacked adequate family support. Because economic opportunities were limited for women, widows often became destitute without family assistance, prompting local synagogues and early Christian communities to provide support[2]. Thus while family responsibility formed the cultural foundation, religious communities increasingly recognized that some widows fell through the cracks of familial obligation.
[1] Timothy J. Murray, “Widows,” in Behind the Scenes of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. T. J. Lang, Elizabeth E. Shively, and Bruce W. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2024), 464.
[2] Craig S. Keener and John H. Walton, eds., NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 2113.
[3] William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 119–120.
[4] Paul M. Zehr, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA; Waterloo, ON: Herald Press, 2010), 111.
How did the Apostles address the issue?
They delegated the issue to the church to appoint men of a good reputation to fulfill the duty.
Why did the Apostles themselves not fulfill the role?
They viewed their primary role as preaching and teaching the Word of God and prayer.
to leave the word of God—to have our time and attention withdrawn from preaching; which, it thus appears, they regarded as their primary duty
To serve tables literally means to distribute food.
Not that it was below them to do so, however they were more focused on what Jesus had commanded them to do. Also to note how God was using them during this time in to teach and preach in the temple and to meet the spiritual needs of the church.
Notice that the whole multitude was pleased with this decision.
Despite their previous disunity, this response seemed to unite them again.
Faithlife Study Bible Chapter 6
6:5 All of the men listed in this verse have Greek names. The community acts to ensure care for those outside its original social and cultural bounds—those who were previously marginalized—by appointing to leadership people who are from the same background.
What are these men called according to the office in which they serve in the church?
Deacons.
Lets look at some of the men who were chosen, because I like to nerd out on this.
Stephen:
he was a man eminent for his faith in Christ, and his faithfulness to him, and in every thing he was concerned, and for his courage and boldness in the cause of Christ, and for other gifts and graces of the spirit, with which he was filled; he was, it is very likely, the most eminent person of all the seven, and is therefore named first; he is afterwards taken notice of, and was the first that suffered martyrdom for Christ, with which he was crowned, answerable to his name, which signifies a crown
Philip:
who was also an evangelist, and had four daughters that prophesied; and perhaps is the same that went down to Samaria, and preached Christ there with great success, and after that baptized the Ethiopian eunuch
Yes, they are the same person. Philip was chosen as one of the seven deacons alongside Stephen (Acts 6:5), and after persecution broke out following Stephen’s execution, he traveled to Samaria to proclaim the gospel.[1] This same individual later encountered the Ethiopian official on the road.
On the road to Gaza, Philip explained the Servant Song from Isaiah 53:7–8 to an Ethiopian eunuch who served as a court official under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and the eunuch believed and received baptism.[2] Following this encounter, Philip preached in Azotus and Caesarea, and remained in Caesarea when the apostle Paul visited years later.[3]
However, it’s worth noting that early Christian sources from the second century, including Polycrates and Papias, conflated Philip the apostle (one of Jesus’s twelve disciples) with Philip the evangelist (the deacon), treating them as the same person[2]—a confusion that persists in some ancient texts. The New Testament itself, though, clearly distinguishes between these two figures: Philip the apostle was one of the twelve disciples who came from Bethsaida[4], while Philip the evangelist was selected from among the Jerusalem church’s community to serve widows and the poor. The Philip of Acts 6:5 who preached to the Ethiopian is the deacon and evangelist, not the apostle.
[1] Steve Green and Bill High, This Beautiful Book: An Exploration of the Bible’s Incredible Story Line and Why It Matters Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019), 187.
[2] Lester L. Grabbe and John Y. H. Yieh, “Philip,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 4:500.
[3] Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds., in Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995). [See here.]
[4] Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 3:427.
Prochorus:
of this and the rest, no other mention is made in the sacred writings. He is said by some to be a nephew of Stephen’s, and first bishop of Nicomedia; but these are things not certain; and as for the life of the Apostle John, said to be written by him, it is a spurious and fabulous piece.
Nicanor:
of this man we have no other certain account; for that he suffered martyrdom with Stephen is not to be depended on. It is a Grecian name; there is one of this name who was a general in Demetriu’s army, who was sent by him against the Jews, 1 Maccab, 7:26 and there was a gate of the temple, which was called the gate of Nicanor
Timon:
he is said to be afterwards bishop of Beræa; though others make him bishop, of Bostra; but with what truth cannot be asserted
Parmenas:
of him no other account is given, than in the Roman martyrology, which is not to be depended upon, that he suffered martyrdom under Trajan
Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch:
who was first a Greek or Gentile, and then became a Jew, a proselyte of righteousness, and then a Christian, and now made a deacon.
who was first a Greek or Gentile, and then became a Jew, a proselyte of righteousness, and then a Christian, and now made a deacon. Some think, that from this man sprung the sect of the Nicolaitanes, spoken of in the Revelations; though others think, that that wicked set of men only covered themselves with his name, or that they abused some words of his, and perverted the right meaning of them; though was it certain he did turn out a wicked man, it is not to be wondered at, that since there was a devil among the twelve apostles, there should be a hypocrite and a vicious man among the first seven deacons. It is observable, that the names of all these deacons are Greek names; from whence, it seems, that they were of the Grecian or Hellenistic Jews; so that the church thought fit to chose men out of that part of them which made the complaint, in order to make them easy; which is an instance of prudence and condescension, and shews of what excellent spirits they were of.
How were they confirmed by the Apostles?
The laying on of hands.
In the New Testament, the laying on of hands most often represents a channel of blessing[1], though the practice served multiple purposes within early Christian communities.
Healing and blessing formed the primary context for this gesture. Laying on of hands accompanied healings by both Jesus and the leaders of the early Church[1]. The touch became a means of expressing involvement and the authority to convey God’s blessing, with the hands representing the whole person, effective for healing[1]. Importantly, the Church’s representative functioned as the channel for healing that was actually accomplished by God[1], rather than the gesture itself possessing inherent power.
Impartation of spiritual gifts represented another significant function. When hands were laid on new believers in Samaria and they received the Holy Spirit, the apostles’ response shows that it was the attitude of the recipient’s heart rather than the laying on of hands that was instrumental for receiving the Holy Spirit[1]. The hand appears to symbolize power, and the laying on of hands symbolizes that a process of power transfer or of empowering takes place[2].
Commissioning for office constituted a third dimension. The laying on of hands is the only ceremony taken over from the Old Testament by the New Testament church for the consecration and ordination of its ministry[2]. The seven men chosen to assist the apostles were set apart through laying on of hands because they had been found to be “full of the Spirit and wisdom”[2]. Barnabas and Saul were sent off for further missionary work by the church of Antioch after the Holy Spirit had indicated they should do this[2].
Fundamentally, the ceremony represents a piece of natural symbolism with the central idea that through physical contact the person performing it identifies himself with the other in the presence of God[3].
[1] Allen C. Myers, “LAYING,” in The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 647.
[2] Reinder Bruinsma, The Body of Christ: A Biblical Understanding of the Church, ed. George R. Knight, Woodrow W. Whidden II, and Richard W. Coffen, Library of Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald® Publishing Association, 2009), 111.
[3] James Hastings et al., in Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), 537.
If you have ever been to an ordination service, it is truly an amazing experience. We went to an ordination service for a friend of ours at our old church and it was an amazing service. Focused on the duty which God has separated and called that person do. It is a moment of great prayer and blessing on the person and their family in which the Holy Spirit works in a magnificent way during the service. God’s presence can be felt and the calling of that person is reassured with prayer and the laying on of hands.
The laying on of hands represents not only the blessing but the identification of those who have placed their hands on that person. That not only do they identify with them, but that they support and approve them with their own reputation at stake.
This is why Paul warns to lay hands suddenly on no man. Because that person must be tested and tried to be found fit before a man lays his reputation on them.
22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.
Why do you think the church continued to increase in verse 7?
Multiple reasons:
The Apostles were fully given to prayer and the ministry.
The deacons were now fulfilling their duties to tend to the needs of the church.
The congregation was now in unity.
Who else were getting saved?
The priests.
We now see that the gospel is spreading to many of the religious leaders.
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. 9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
What are the first characteristics we learn about Stephen?
He is full of faith and power.
He is said to be full of faith, as before, in ver. 5 the Alexandrian copy, and four of Beza’s copies read, full of grace: and so do the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions; the Ethiopic version reads, full of the grace of God: he had an uncommon share of it; it was exceeding abundant in him; he had a sufficiency of it for the service and sufferings be was called to: and he was full of power to preach the Gospel, and teach it the people, which he did with authority; to defend it, and oppose the adversaries of it; to bear reproach and indignities for it, and even death itself; and to do miraculous works for the confirmation of it, as follows: did great wonders and miracles among the people; openly before them, such as speaking with divers tongues, healing diseases, casting out devils, &c.
John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 191.
There are some manuscripts that read ‘full of grace’ indicating God’s favor upon him. We could read the sentence like this:
And Stephen, full of grace and the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible backs this statement up with the fact that Stephen was able to perform great wonders and miracles.
Who witnessed these signs?
The People.
It is important here to recognize that these miracles and wonders were done in public. That means there were people who could verify the accuracy of the works that were being done.
We don’t know the specific miracles that Stephen performed. What is clear by Greek grammar is that these were not isolated inicdents but that Stephen had a pattern or consistency in which he was able to perform these wonders.
The biblical text does not specify the particular wonders and miracles Stephen performed[1], but the search results provide important context about the nature of his miraculous ministry.
Stephen “did great wonders and signs among the people,”[2] and the Greek grammar indicates this was an ongoing pattern rather than isolated incidents[1]. As someone filled with the Holy Spirit and characterized by zeal, he performed many wonderful miracles[3]. Beyond these general descriptions, the historical record remains silent on the specifics—whether he healed the sick, cast out demons, or performed other types of supernatural acts.
What we do know is that Stephen’s miraculous power was inseparable from his spiritual authority. Those who opposed him in debate—members of various synagogues—could not resist the wisdom and power with which he spoke[3]. His miracles were not merely displays of divine power but served to authenticate his message and character.
Notably, Stephen’s ability to perform signs and wonders demonstrates that miraculous gifts were not restricted to the apostles alone[4]. God empowered Stephen through the Holy Spirit and his obedience to God’s word[1], enabling him to operate in the supernatural realm as a deacon rather than an apostle. This broader distribution of miraculous gifts among early believers challenges the assumption that only the Twelve possessed such powers.
Stephen’s ministry ultimately culminated not in continued miracles but in his martyrdom—he preached the longest sermon recorded in Acts and experienced a miraculous vision of the ascended Christ before being executed[2].
[1] Jack Andrews, Understanding Acts, The Jack Andrews Expository Studies (WORDsearch, 2010), 2:92.
[2] Jay E. Adams, Signs and Wonders in the Last Days (Cordova, TN: Institute for Nouthetic Studies, 2020), 54–55.
[3] Richard Watson, “Stephen,” in A Biblical and Theological Dictionary (New York: Lane & Scott, 1851), 872.
[4] Sam Storms, Understanding Spiritual Gifts (HarperCollins, 2020), iii–v.
Who are the groups of people who arose from the synagogue?
Libertines, Cyrenians, & Alexandrians.
Who were these groups of people?
To understand this, we would have to have a little history lesson. We would need to journey back to 63 B.C. to the war of Pompey.
Pompey’s military campaign against Jerusalem took place in 63 BC[1][2], though this wasn’t technically a “War of Pompey” in the traditional sense. Rather, Pompey intervened in an internal conflict between the Hasmonean brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, siding with Hyrcanus through the influence of Antipater, an Idumean leader and father of Herod the Great[1].
The campaign itself involved a three-month siege of Jerusalem[2]. Pompey erected a siege ramp on the north side of the temple, and after three months, Roman battering rams breached the city wall, resulting in the slaying of many priests who continued their service at the altar[1]. Pompey exercised his right of conquest by entering the Jerusalem Temple, an act that desecrated the holy place[1].
The broader context reveals this wasn’t an isolated military action but rather part of Pompey’s larger eastern campaigns. In 64 BC, Pompey had marched into Syria and deposed the Seleucid ruler Antiochus XIII[1], establishing Roman dominance in the region. Though Pompey entered the Holy of Holies, he did not take temple treasure; he installed Hyrcanus as high priest and made Judea tributary to Rome under the supervision of the Roman governor of Syria[3]. This intervention fundamentally altered Jewish political independence, marking the beginning of Roman rule over Judea that would persist for centuries.
[1] L. David Palmer, Casket Empty New Testament Study Guide: God’s Plan of Redemption through History (Casket Empty Media, 2016), 28.
[2] Moisés Silva and Merrill Chapin Tenney, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, M-P (Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009), 924.
[3] Bruce A. Marshall, “Pompey (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:395.
The Libertines:
These were Jews who had once been enslaved by Rome and were most likely the decendants of the captives that were taken to Rome by the General Pompey during the war against Jerusalem. They gained their freedom and settled in Jerusalem.
The Cyrenians:
These are Hellenistic Jews from Cyrene who settled in Jerusalem.
The Alexandrians:
These were Hellenistic from Alexandria who settled in Jerusalem.
The identity of the Libertines and Cyrenians in Acts 6:9 remains debated among scholars, though search results converge on their general character as diaspora Jewish communities.
The Libertines were Jews who had once been enslaved by Rome—possibly descendants of captives taken to Rome by Pompey—who gained their freedom and settled in Jerusalem with enough numbers to maintain their own synagogue.[1] The term itself, borrowed from Roman law, denotes formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants.[2] The scholarly disagreement centers on whether these freedmen originated specifically from Rome or from an African location. The most probable view holds that these were Jews captured during Roman military campaigns, transported to Italy, eventually freed, and subsequently returned to Jerusalem in sufficient numbers to establish a dedicated place of worship.[3]
The Cyrenians, by contrast, present less interpretive difficulty. They were Hellenistic Jews from Cyrene (in North Africa) who had settled in Jerusalem.[2] Because the Cyrenians and Alexandrians—both demonstrably from Africa—are listed alongside the Libertines, some scholars propose African origins for the Libertines as well.[3] However, since the term “Libertines” appears alongside geographically specific groups, it must carry geographical significance, pointing most likely to descendants of the numerous prisoners of war Pompey transported to Rome.[2]
These groups formed a synagogal union—a religious association rather than simply a physical building.[2] It was within these synagogues that Stephen encountered opposition when he appeared preaching Jesus as Messiah.[1] The precise organizational structure remains somewhat unclear from the text, but their shared status as diaspora communities reconvening in Jerusalem emerges as their defining characteristic.
[1] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933). [See here, here.]
[2] Hermann Strathmann, “Λιβερτῖνοι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 265–266.
[3] William Wilberforce Rand, ed., “Libertines,” in A Dictionary of the Holy Bible: For the General Use in the Study of Scriptures with Engravings, Maps and Tables (WORDsearch, 2008), 261.
It does seem that the context suggests that maybe these two groups formed a synagogal union together. Not a physical building but they had formed some association with one another.
What is significant about the mention of Cilicia?
Cilicia is a province in southeast Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).
Tarsus was located in Cilicia.
Who was from Tarsus?
Paul.
39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
What were these people from the synagogues doing with Stephen?
Debating with him.
I think it is plausible that Paul could have been present during this debate with Stephen.
It is believed that he would have been associated with the Libertines in some way.
I can clearly imagine Paul being present and debating as that seems to fit his ministry later when he goes on his missionary journeys.
What problem did all the congregations of these synagogues have with Stephen?
They could were not able stand against his wisdom.
The word for resist means to stand against. They were not able to defend themselves and he had the greater wisdom.
Was this because of Stephen? Who gave him this wisdom and power?
The Holy Spirit.
This is a good time to stop and remember that the Holy Spirit gives us wisdom and the words to speak when we need them. We are to be submitted to Him and empty of self. It is only when we are empty of our self that we can be full of the Holy Spirit.
What does it mean that they ‘suborned men’?
The word suborned means to secretly instigate.
They most likely hired false witnesses to speak against him. The goal to not only instigate a problem but to escalate it to a greater issue.
Because they instigate a greater problem, who else gets involved?
The sanhedrin.
Our boys are back! Here they come. These guys are never far from a controversy and they love the attention. Lately reading the bible feels a lot like watching politics. Some things never change.
Notice how they took him: The word ‘caught’ means to snatch away and seize someone.
What blasphemous words do they accuse Stephen of speaking?
That Jesus abolished the ceremonial law.
How were they looking at Stephen?
Intensely.
The word ἀτενίζω (atenizō) means to gaze upon or to focus on intently.
How did Stephen’s face appear before them?
Like the face of an angel.
The Greek verb ἀτενίζω (atenizō) derives from a compound combining a particle of union with τείνω (to stretch), and fundamentally means to direct one’s vision with concentrated attention toward something or someone[1]. The word conveys the sense of staring intently[2], moving beyond casual observation to focused, deliberate looking.
The semantic range of this verb encompasses several related but distinct applications. At its core, it involves fixing one’s eyes upon a person or thing with sustained attention[3]. English translations in the King James Version render it variously as “look steadfastly,” “behold steadfastly,” and “fasten (one’s) eyes”[4]. The word typically appears with the preposition εἰς and an accusative object, or alternatively with a dative without a preposition[3].
The verb appears with particular frequency in Acts, where it often describes the disciples’ concentrated attention during significant moments. Examples include the synagogue audience fixing their eyes on Jesus in Luke 4:20, and a servant girl staring intently at Peter in Luke 22:56[2]. In Acts 1:10, the disciples gaze upward toward heaven as Jesus ascends[2]. Peter similarly directs his fixed attention toward a beggar in Acts 3:4[2].
Notably, the word can be applied either to the person looking or directly to the eyes themselves, as in Luke 4:20 where “the eyes were looking intently at him”[3]. This grammatical flexibility allows the verb to emphasize either the subject’s intentional focus or the visual organs performing the action. The intensity conveyed by ἀτενίζω distinguishes it from more general verbs of sight, marking moments when observation becomes deliberate, sustained, and spiritually or narratively significant.
[1] James Strong, in A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 1:17.
[2] Rick Brannan, ed., in Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020). [See here, here, here, here.]
[3] S. T. Bloomfield, in A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longmans, 1840), 50.
[4] James Strong, “Ἀτενίζω,” in Strong’s Talking Greek and Hebrew Dictionary (WORDsearch, 2020). [See here.]
