Heilsgeschichte

History has a beginning and an end. More importantly history has a purpose. Everything is leading up to that purpose.

The glorification of God through Christ as he was exalted by the Spirit is at the center of God’s purpose for history.

The incarnation, perfect obedience, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension are at the center of Christ’s work.

Since the life of Christ is at the center of the eternal purpose of God and is the fulcrum upon which all history turns, everything should be viewed through the lens of Christ’s work.

Whenever we see an event in the OT, we should ask what that event teaches us about Christ.

Whenever we see a law from God in the OT, we should ask how that points to Christ.

Stephen’s heilsgeschichte sermon

Synagogue of the Freedmen disputed with Stephen.

The Freedmen were Roman prisoners (or the descendants of such prisoners) who had later been granted their freedom. We know that a considerable number of Jews were taken prisoner by the Roman general Pompey and later released in Rome, and it is possible that these are meant here. The relation of the other names of local groups to that of the Freedmen and to one another is not certain. Different scholars have postulated any number of synagogues from one (for all the various groups) to five (one synagogue for each group). While Bruce (Book, p. 133) thinks of one synagogue for freedmen from the four groups mentioned, the Greek construction favours two synagogues, one for the first three groups (Freedmen, Cyrenians, Alexandrians), and one for the remaining two (Cilicians, Asians). It was natural for national groups to form their own synagogues for worship in Jerusalem, and they would be attended both by immigrants settled in Jerusalem and by casual visitors.

I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 137–138.

Stephen’s “speech” is one of the longest recorded speeches in the NT. The purpose of the speech in its original setting and in the book of Acts is disputed. Marshall said, “It follows that the speech accomplishes at least three purposes: (1) It is a defence to the charges brought against Stephen. He implicitly denies that he has spoken against the law of Moses, and makes himself out to be a defender of the law. He justifies his attitude of criticism of the temple and its worship. (2) It is an attack on the Jews for their failure to obey the revelation given to them in the Old Testament and for their rejection of the Messiah and the new way of worship which he brought. (3) Consequently, the speech has its part in the total story of Acts in showing that the Jews, to whom the gospel was first preached, had rejected it, and thus clearing the way for the church to turn away from Jerusalem and the temple and to evangelize further afield, and ultimately among the Gentiles.”

It follows that the speech accomplishes at least three purposes: (1) It is a defence to the charges brought against Stephen. He implicitly denies that he has spoken against the law of Moses, and makes himself out to be a defender of the law. He justifies his attitude of criticism of the temple and its worship. (2) It is an attack on the Jews for their failure to obey the revelation given to them in the Old Testament and for their rejection of the Messiah and the new way of worship which he brought. (3) Consequently, the speech has its part in the total story of Acts in showing that the Jews, to whom the gospel was first preached, had rejected it, and thus clearing the way for the church to turn away from Jerusalem and the temple and to evangelize further afield, and ultimately among the Gentiles.”

I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 140–141.

It seems to me that Stephen preached this message to show God’s consistent appeal to his people through prophets who were rejected so that the crowd would understand that they had rejected the greatest prophet and must now accept the Gospel.

God’s Promises to the Patriarchs—

God Brought the People to Bondage—

Acts: An Introduction and Commentary c. Stephen’s Speech in Court (7:1–53)

The relation of the story of the burial to the Old Testament traditions is complicated. According to Acts they were all buried at Shechem in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor. (1) According to Genesis 49:29–32; 50:13 Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron which Abraham had bought from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23). (2) Joseph was buried at Shechem (Josh. 24:32) in land which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor (Gen. 33:18–20). (3) Josephus states that Jacob’s other sons (and, by implication, Jacob himself) were buried at Hebron (Jos., Ant. 2:199), and this tradition is also found in Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. (4) There was a local tradition at Shechem that the twelve sons of Jacob were buried there. It thus appears that Stephen differs from the Old Testament account in that he locates the tomb which Abraham bought at Shechem, not Hebron, and in that he adds the detail about the brothers of Joseph being buried there also. Bruce (Book, p. 149 n.39) suggests that, just as Stephen has telescoped the two calls of Abraham at Ur and Haran in verse 2 and the two divine messages in verse 7, so here he has telescoped the two accounts of purchases of land in Canaan. It seems probable that Stephen has followed a tradition, according to which not only Joseph (he, rather than Jacob, is perhaps meant by he died, himself in verse 15b) but also his brothers were buried at Shechem, and that he has attributed the purchase of the grave there to Abraham by including an allusion to the story in Genesis 23. The interest in Shechem and the emphasis upon it is remarkable in a speech addressed to Jews in Jerusalem, but they certainly could not contest the fact of Joseph’s burial in the hated Samaritan territory. There is nothing sacrosanct about Judea as a place of burial; is there perhaps also a subtle preparation of Luke’s readers for the story of the evangelism of Samaria (8:5–25)?

God Brought a Prophet to Redeem the People—.

God’s People Rejected God’s Prophet—

Acts: An Introduction and Commentary c. Stephen’s Speech in Court (7:1–53)

The narrative style is dropped at this point, and instead we have a series of statements about Moses, which are expressed somewhat rhetorically in the Greek text. Each statement begins with the demonstrative This (man) used four times over; verses 38b and 39 begin with relative pronouns. We are reminded of the similar way in which Peter speaks of ‘this Jesus’ in his speeches earlier in Acts (e.g. 2:23, 32, 36). The point of the device in the first of the statements is obvious: it was this very Moses whom the Israelites rejected in Egypt whom God appointed as a leader and redeemer. Then the following statements in verses 36, 37 and 38 lay further stress on the significant things which Moses said and did, before Stephen finally brings out again the fact that it was this Moses whom the Israelites refused to obey (verses 39–41). So the passage brings out not simply the Israelite rejection of Moses, but also the way in which this was a rejection of the God-given leader. Again the typological parallel with the Jewish rejection of Jesus, the One whom God raised from the dead, is implicit. This is particularly obvious in the opening statement. When Stephen gives a counter to the Israelite dismissal of Moses as a ruler and a judge, he insists that God sent him as a ruler and deliverer. Ruler is a term that could be applied to Jesus (Rev. 1:5), and a very similar term is used of him in 5:31. As for deliverer, this is the rendering of a Greek word (lytrōtēs) which is derived from a verb which means ‘to redeem’. Surprising as it may seem, it is only Moses who is given the actual title of ‘redeemer’ in the New Testament and not Jesus. Since, however, the task of delivering Israel is assigned elsewhere to Jesus (Luke 2:38; 24:21; cf. 1:68), Christian readers would detect the typological allusion here. What was God’s task (Pss 19:14; 78:35) is here delegated to his agent by the angelic voice at the burning bush. It was, therefore, Moses who actually brought the people out of Egypt to the accompaniment of miraculous signs wrought by God. The phraseology is drawn from the Old Testament, but again the Christian reader would recollect that the same language was used of Jesus and the apostles (2:22, 43; cf. 6:8 of Stephen himself).

37. Now the typological point becomes even clearer. Stephen reminds his hearers that it was this man, Moses, who was responsible for the prophecy about the coming of a prophet like himself (Deut. 18:15) which the early Christians had already begun to see fulfilled in the coming of Jesus (3:22). This early Christian usage is probably sufficient to explain why the text is quoted here, but it may be noted that the verse was an important one in Samaritan theology, and its presence here could give some weight to the cumulative argument for Samaritan influence upon Stephen.

38. For Jewish hearers, however, the climax in the description of Moses comes with the account of the gathering of the people of Israel in the desert at Mount Sinai. Again typology is not absent. The word translated congregation is ekklēsia, which Christians took over as a designation for their own community; it could be that Christians would see a certain parallelism between the presence of Moses with the Israelites on their pilgrimage through the desert and the presence of Jesus with the new people of God on their earthly pilgrimage. But it is unlikely that this is part of the primary message of the passage for Stephen’s Jewish hearers. The point is rather that at this assembly of the people Moses received the law, the living words of God (Rom. 3:2). This was the mark of the high privilege of Israel. The giving of the law was the sign of the covenant which God had made with them, and it was by obedience to the law that they would continue to be God’s covenant people. Stephen implicitly shared this belief.

39–40. But now comes a turning point. Still continuing the Greek sentence begun in verse 38, Stephen comments how the original recipients of the law had failed to keep it. They had rejected Moses in his capacity as the law-giver, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt (cf. Num. 14:3f.). Worse still, they commanded Aaron to make gods to go before them and cast scorn upon Moses during his absence to receive the law from God (Exod. 32:1). Right from the moment when the law was solemnly given to the assembly of God’s people, they rebelled against the giver and turned to idolatry. For all their protestations of loyalty to the law and the temple and their accusations against Stephen (6:11, 13f.), his hearers belonged to a nation which right from the outset had rejected the law and the true worship of God.

41–43. With this thought the speech takes a new turn, and down to verse 50 it is concerned with the twin themes of idolatry and temple-worship in Israel. The theme is developed by means of a brief historical survey which covers the

Reject the Holy Spirit?—

Christological Reading Practice: How many ways does Moses foreshadow Christ?