Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

[Resource Manager]

Inspired wisdom

 

Stephen's natural ability and exceptional education were so re­inforced by the intensifying power of the Holy Spirit, that, just as Jesus had promised, this protagonist of the Truth of Christ had "a mouth and wisdom, which all his adversaries were not able to gainsay nor resist" (Lk. 21:15). "I will be with thy mouth, and will teach thee what thou shalt say," God had promised Moses; and now it was true once more for this champion of the New Israel. Here the Bezan text adds: "They were convicted by him with all boldness. Therefore not being able to face the truth ...

 

Oddly enough, there are plenty of critical commentators who, when they come to Stephen's speech in chapter 7, cry out at the sequence of Biblical errors with which (so they say) his argument is peppered. Does it never occur to these self–confident critics that if indeed Stephen's methods were so slapdash, his very able adversaries both in synagogue and Sanhedrin would have been eager and quick to expose them as such?

 

Finding that head–on collision got them nowhere, they set about creating a build–up of prejudice against him in the minds of the people. This was earlier than might have seemed possible, for Stephen, with the clear clean logic begotten of a thorough grasp of the Almighty's redeeming purpose in Christ, could see that there was no further room for animal sacrifice since the offering of the one all–sufficient sacrifice; no room either for the copious explicit laws and ordinances given through Moses. When men were justified by faith in Christ, the temple and Moses must go, and Israel's position of privilege too. With fine Biblical reasoning from Law and Prophets Stephen argued his case, and could not be gainsaid.

 

Sinister plans

 

But he could be subtly mis–represented. It is a tactic prejudice never finds difficult. "This Stephen despises Moses and the temple" was the story they put round about him. A team of unscrupu­lous propagandists were bribed and drilled how best to get the slander into circulation.

 

The same campaign served also to swing the majority Pharisee party on the Sanhedrin away from the toleration recommended by the great Gamaliel, so that now, as when they had got rid of Jesus, both sections of the Sanhedrin were at one in their purpose.

 

Then, after a while, when popular sentiment was clearly beginning to turn against the believers, Stephen's enemies (Saul amongst them?) went into action. They hunted him down, and arrested him.

 

The rest of the procedure was easy. Whilst a formal assembly of the Sanhedrin was being called, certain unscrupulous fellows who had earlier been involved in disputation with Stephen were now carefully drilled to present evidence against him.

 

Misrepresentation

 

Jesus had said: "(You) unloose, take down (Iuo) this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it again" (Jn. 2:19). At his trial this was subtly switched to: "I am able to destroy (kataluo) ..." (Mt. 26:61). And at his crucifixion mockers twisted his words yet further: "Thou that destroyest (kataluo) the temple, and buildest it in three days ..." (Mt. 27:40). Now the charge was perverted further, and made to do double duty: "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth (note this contempt in this phrasing) shall destroy (kataluo) this place ...".

 

The half–truth was sufficiently slanted to make a damning case against the prisoner.

 

And the rest of the accusation, just as bad in Jewish eyes: "Jesus of Nazareth will change the customs which Moses delivered us" was absolutely true, and anything but blasphemy. But how could he hope to persuade them to this?

[Resource Manager]

The trial begun

 

So when high priest Caiaphas, utterly confident, turned to him and blandly enquired: "Are these things so?" Stephen was ready, and even eager, with a defence which quite unexpectedly was to become a searing exposure and accusation of his judges: "Ye who received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it" (7:53).

 

These learned and powerful men, sitting in a semicircle before him, stared intently at the prisoner in the dock, and then stared again in utter amazement. For they saw in his face what had been seen once before, by only a handful of those who had been present at the arrest of Jesus of Nazareth (Jn. 18:6; "Studies in the Gospels", p.727).

 

"They saw his face as it had been the face of an angel." And Stephen was himself aware of the phenomenon, for in his speech his opening phrase was: "The God of the glory," that is, of this glory (which you now see in me). This radiant glory shining from his countenance was surely the divine Light which Holy Scripture described as being on the face of Moses (Ex. 34:29). And yet their case against Stephen was that he was blaspheming Moses!

 

They remembered too that their great ancestor Jacob had looked on the face of an angel, and his life had only been preserved because of his humble persistent importunity — and even then he had gone crippled for life, to remind him that it was futile to rely on his own powers against those of God.

 

They listened uneasily, yet hating the man who looked so God–like.

 

Stephen and Jesus

 

There can be no doubt whatever that Luke has deliberately framed his narrative concerning Stephen so as to remind the reader as often as possible of the character and experience of Stephen's Lord.

 

He took on him the form of a servant.

He was full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, full of grace and power.

Great wonders and signs among the people.

Synagogue discourses and disputa­tions.

His adversaries unable to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.

Men (false brethren?) were suborned to campaign against him.

They came on him, and seized him, and brought him to the council and the same high priest.

False witnesses testified against him.

"This Jesus shall destroy this place (the temple)".

and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us."

A passionate outburst of denun­ciation finally settled his fate.

An identical confession: The Son of man at the right hand of God. In each case this was decisive.

The only New Testament mention of "Son of man" outside the words of Christ himself.

They saw his face as the face of an angel.

There was despiteful treatment of his person.

He saw the heavens opened, and beheld the Shekinah Glory of God.

They took him out of the city, to put him to death, at the same place (a very ancient tradition says Golgotha was "The Place of Stoning").

In dying he cried out with a loud voice:

"Receive my spirit," and "Lay not this sin to their charge."

Devout men carried him to his burial.

Stephen rose from the dead in the conversion of Saul.

The believers went everywhere preaching the word, even taking the message to the Gentiles.

"Stephen" means Crowned (compare "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews").

 

* * *

[Resource Manager]

There is not only genius but inspiration in the framing of such a narrative as this. Also, clear evidence of divine control of circumstances.

 

But the servant cannot be completely as his Lord. So there are such differences as these:

 

There was no charge of claiming to be a king.

Stephen did not keep silence before the Sanhedrin.

He was stoned, not crucified.

 

 

Notes: 6:8–15

8. Faith. Many good manuscripts read: "grace," a word often used as a synonym for a gift of the Spirit; e.g. Lk. 4:22; Rom. 12:3, 6; Eph. 4:7; Gal. 2:9.

Did: was working, that is continually.

9. Arose, Compare 5:17.

Synagogue. The Talmud has the absurd statement that Jerusalem had 480 synagogues. They got this by gematria for "full of righteousness."Libertines. Identification with Jews from Libertum in N. Africa is unlikely. The place was too unimportant: There was a synagogue of freed slaves in Pompeii. An interesting inscription (pre — A.D. 70) was found some years ago in the S.E. comer of Jerusalem: "Theodotus, son of Vettenus, priest and synagogue president ... has built the synagogue ... and the hostelry and the chambers and the cisterns of water in order to provide lodgings for those from abroad who need them ..." The Vettenus mentioned here must have been a Jewish freed slave of the Vetteni, an aristocratic Roman family.

Cyrene, Alexandria. At least a quarter of the population in both places were Jews. It is commonly said, without real evidence, that Stephen was an Alexandrian. In his speech (ch.7) all his Old Testament quotations are from the Septuagint, which was made in Alexandria. This might prove Stephen one of the diaspora (for the Septuagint was the Bible of nearly all Grecian Jews), but not necessarily of Alexandria.

10. Consider Is. 54:17, and much else in that chapter.

11. Suborned. The Greek word describes whispering, plotting, bribery.

Moses ... God. Note the order, and compare the use of "we" in Num 20:10. In v.13, the expression is stronger

12. Stirred up the people. This is the turning of the tide in Jerusalem; cf. 5:12, 13, 16, 25, 42.

13. Seized: s.w. 27:15; Lk. 8:29. This and "moved" are both medical terms.

13. A definite charge this time; contrast 4:7.

This holy place; contrast Mt. 23:38.

14. We heard him say. Contrast what they heard him say, in ch.7.

This Jesus. Compare 7:35,37,38,40; and also 18:13; 19:26.

Destroy this place. 2 Chr. 7:20,21.

15. The face of an angel – because of 7:56. Compare Paul's allusion in 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4.6; In "The Acts of Paul and Thekla" Paul himself is described in the same way.

[Resource Manager]

26. Stephen's "mistakes" (Acts 7)

 

Not a few commentators have aired their superiority by dwelling on the long catalogue of Biblical errors exhibited in Stephen's speech before the Council. So that the main study of this remarkable discourse can proceed un–impeded, it may be as well to consider these "howlers" one by one, to see whether there is any substance in the criticism.

 

The explanations given here depend a good deal on the excellent review to be found "The Oracles of God" (chapter 8), by the late John Carter.

 

1. Stephen says God first revealed himself to Abraham in Mesopotamia (v.2). According to Gen. 12:1, the first call came when he was in Haran.

 

This objection can only be the result of careless reading, for 12:1 reads: "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred ...". That phrase: "out of thy country" plainly implies that Abraham was still in his country (11:28, 31) when these words were spoken to him. Gen. 15:7,Josh. 24:3, and Neh. 9:7 all carry the same implication (For more details, see

Abraham, Father of the Faithful,

ch. 1,2, by H.A.W.).

 

2. Abraham left Haran after his father died, says Stephen (v.4). But accord­ing to the details in Genesis 11:26, 32; 12:4, Terah lived for 60 years after Abraham left Haran.

 

The objection made here depends on the inference that since "Terah ... begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran," therefore Abram was the firstborn. But this need not have been the case. Noah's sons are not given in order of birth (Gen. 5:32; 9:18; 10:21). Further, there is indication that Abraham was probably the youngest in the fact that he married Sarah of the next generation, yet they were nearly of an age.

 

It is agreed that this explanation requires that Terah must have been 130 when Abram was born, a fact passed over without particular mention; yet the birth of Isaac when Abraham was 100 is represented as one of the outstanding phenomena of divine power in the Genesis story. An alternative approach to this problem is to accept the reading in the Samaritan Pentateuch, that at his death Terah was not 205, but 145. This resolves both aspects of the problem. If indeed Luke was a Samaritan (ch.110), dependence here and in verse 16, is more readily understood.

 

3. There is inconsistency between Stephen's 400 years' bondage (v.6; Gen. 15:13), and the 430 years specified in Ex. 12:40.

 

Since both figures are derived from the Old Testament, the incon­sistency lies not in Stephen's details, but (if it exists) between the Genesis and Exodus accounts.

 

But there is no inconsistency, as careful attention to the details reveals. In Genesis,

"the seed

shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs ... four hundred years." Since, demonstrably, the children of Israel were not in Egypt anything like this period, it must be taken to cover all the period that Abraham's seed were strangers; i.e. there is need to reckon from the birth of Isaac. But the 430 covers "the sojourning of the children of Israel," which (according to Heb. 11:9) includes Abraham's sojourning in a land not his, that is, from the time he left Ur of the Chaldees. Read this way, the figures allow for a 5 years sojourn in Haran, and then 25 years in the Land of Canaan before the birth of Isaac.

[Resource Manager]

4. In v.6, 7 Stephen quotes Gen. 15:13, 14, and then adds a further quotation "and shall serve me in this place." But these words are from Ex. 3:12, and in their context they do not refer to Canaan, but to Sinai. But as put together in Stephen's speech there seems to be a misapplication to Israel's return to Canaan.

 

This criticism springs from a failure to recognize how com­pressed Luke's reporting is. Reference to Acts 3:1; 4:3 makes it evident that Peter's speech that day took approximately three hours to deliver. Yet Luke's version of it can be read in three minutes. So there is considerable compression. And so also in chapter 7– is it conceivable that Stephen's speech took only seven or eight minutes?

 

Verse 6 begins: "And God spake on this wise ..." the words are appropriate to both the quotations (v.6–7a and v.7b). An intelligent and not hostile reader will readily recognize that there has been some telescoping here. The same phenomenon crops up in v.42 also. There the telescoping of quotations is even more pronounced. So also in 13:22.

 

Just how accurate Stephen was may be observed by noting that whereas Ex. 3:12 has: "Ye shall serve God upon this mountain (Sinai)", this faithful witness had been quoting from Gen. 15:13,14, a passage which continues: "And in the fourth generation shall they come

hither

again." It needs a careful scrutiny of the Genesis record to recognize that that adverb of place takes the reader back to 14:18–the blessing of Abram by Melchizedek, priest–king of

Salem

.

Hence Stephen's phrase: "in this

place",

which nearly always in OT. and very frequently in N.T. means a holy place, a sanctuary. Evidently David read that "hither" in this specific way, and thus inferred that before he could establish a fitting house of God he must first capture the specified site of it – Jerusalem.

 

5. Stephen makes the number of Jacob's family going into Egypt to be 75, whereas Gen. 46:26; Ex. 1:5; Dt. 10:22 say 70.

 

It is to be observed that in all his Old Testament quotations, Stephen follows the text of the Septuagint precisely. And so here also, for Ex. 1:5; and Dt. 10:22 (Alex. MS, readings which Paul normally followed, and Cod. F) both have 75. Also, the Genesis passage has 5 extra names at verse 20, being members of Joseph's family born in Egypt (though, remarkably enough, the extra 5 are not allowed to inflate 70 to 75 in v.27 there). Thus Stephen has plenty of textual evidence on his side.

 

It becomes another problem to sort out the variations in the Septuagint text. But if Stephen, "full of the Holy Spirit," was guided to quote the numbers thus, then surely these Septuagint readings should be accepted as valid.

 

6. Stephen alludes to the burial of the twelve patriarchs at Shechem (v.16; the plural verb at the beginning of this verse does not necessarily include Jacob; and Stephen knew right well that Jacob was buried at Hebron; Gen. 40:23,24). It is nowhere stated in the Old Testament about eleven of the tribal fathers that they were buried at Shechem, although the burial of Joseph there is specifically mentioned (Joshua 24:32).

 

It must be agreed therefore that at this point Stephen diverged from his Biblical reasoning to include a well–accepted rabbinic tradition that the fathers of the twelve tribes were all buried at Shechem. As will appear in the next study he had good reason for wanting to include this detail, the correctness of which is also vouched for by Jerome who lived in Shechem for 30 years.

[Resource Manager]

7. Did Abraham buy a sepulchre in Shechem from the sons of Hamor (v.16)? Was not the sepulchre he bought in Hebron (Gen. 23:16–20)? And was it not Jacob who bought land of the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father (Gen. 33:19)? So surely Stephen was mixed up here!

 

But certainly Abraham built an altar in Shechem (Gen. 12:6,8), and therefore, almost certainly, he would first buy the land on which he built it as a centre of worship. Doubtless in later years, in the absence of Abraham and then Isaac and then Jacob this land would be quietly taken over once again by the local inhabitants. So, when Jacob died, there is reference to "one portion (Heb:

Shechem)"

bequeathed to Joseph, "which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (48:22). In addition to this Jacob also bought more land in Shechem "of the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father" (33:19).

 

Evidently, then, this verse 16 is another example of compressed Biblical allusion (as in par.4) but without any factual error or misrepre­sentation.

 

8. In the first phase of his life, was Moses "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (v.22)? Exodus says nothing of this.

 

Indeed Exodus did not need to say this explicitly. The idea was obvious enough. As the putative "son of Pharaoh's daughter" and in line for the throne, of course, Moses would have the best education Egypt could provide. Thus "mighty in his words and works" would as adequately describe in general terms an heir to the throne as it would describe the impressive ministry of Jesus (Lk. 24:19). Indeed it may have been used to describe Jesus to the Sanhedrin because it was currently a familiar phrase popularly applied to Moses in early life.

 

The argument from omission on which this objection rests is a great favourite with the critics. Yet only very rarely does it have any logical force. Readers of modern commentaries should be constantly on their guard against being taken in by this slick device.

 

9. Where does the Old Testament say that Moses was forty when he made his first effort at deliverance? (v.30). Answer: Nowhere. It merely says that he was 80 at the exodus (Ex. 7:7), and died at 120 (Dt. 34:7). The division of that 80 into 40 and 40 was a familiar rabbinic inference which may have depended on the phrase: "when he became great" (Ex. 2:11 Heb.) meaning "come of age;" i.e. reached an age for formal designation to the succession (the time when he "refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter"; Heb. 11:24). This is not certain, but seems likely. Alternatively, it may be that the phrase repeated exactly in Ex. 2:11,23 Septuagint (but not in the Hebrew text) is to be read as indicating two equal periods. In any case, here Stephen is not found to be making a mistake, but at worst quoting a popular rabbinic con­clusion quite acceptable to his hearers.

 

10. "He (Moses) supposed that his brethren understood how that God by his hand was giving them deliver­ance (i.e. then)" (v.25RV). It is objected that this is a clear addition to the Old Testament story which actually says nothing of the sort.

 

Even if this were so, it would be possible that Stephen, "full of the Holy Spirit," was guided to make this further explanation. But such a device is hardly necessary, for two expressions seem to warrant Stephen's assessment of the situation: (a) In the objection: "Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?" the important word is the first, its antecedent or relative being, by implication, the word "God." So Moses' first effort at deliverance was

understood

to be divinely inspired. (b) Dt. 9:24: "Ye have been rebellious

against the Lord

from the day that I knew you" (i.e. Ex. 2:14).

 

It looks as though Stephen read his Bible more carefully than some of his critics have done.

[Resource Manager]

11. The criticism that Stephen said "Sinai" (v.30) when he should have said "Horeb" (Ex. 3:1) ought never to have been made, for there are plenty of passages which show that these are two names for the same area; e.g. Dt. 4:10; 33:2.

 

12. Immediately after a paragraph about Israel in the wilderness, Stephen goes on: "but God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven" (v.42). It is urged that this is an anachronism, for there is no word in the Pentateuch about this kind of false worship.

 

But this criticism is badly mistaken for there are no less than three indications that at this point Stephen is switching his argument to consider Israel's waywardness in

later

days. He does it by allusion to three passages all of which belong to the later period of Hezekiah (or thereabouts) but which all make a pointed comparison with Israel's apostasy in the wilderness:

 

 

a. "God turned." This is Is. 63:10 (note v.9, 11, 12, 13).

 

b. "God gave them up." This is Ps. 81:12 (note v.4–11); all these Asaph psalms belong to the Hezekiah period.

 

c. The Amos passage quoted in v.42, 43, is clearly another wilderness allusion, but with pointed reference to the abuses in the prophet's own day. The worship of the host of heaven is denounced in 2 Kgs. 17:16; 21:3, 5 – the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh.

 

 

Read in this light, verses 42, 43 make an excellent bridge passage leading on to Stephen's next theme about the worship of God in tabernacle and temple. See note on "compression", ch.27; note on v.32.

 

13. It is confidently asserted that in his quotation from Amos 5:25, 26, Stephen (in v.42, 43) both altered the details and distorted the prophet's argument. Is this really so?

 

One thing is certain — that the commentator who is qualified to speak confidently about this passage (in its double context) is a very rare bird indeed. Here are a few tentative suggestions. In Amos the point seems to be: In the wilderness did your forefathers offer sacrifices to me as they should have done? No, indeed they didn't, there was almost continuous apostasy. And now you, their descendants, show all the same depraved characteristics. So, as they were punished in the wilderness wandering, so also you shall be cursed with captivity – be­yond Damascus, which was the limit of Israel's power and influence in the days of Amos.

 

At this juncture in his speech Stephen's main point was: You are the children of the evil generations denounced by Moses and Amos; your worship is as false as theirs; in the wilderness a golden calf (v.41), and in later days Moloch and other gods; therefore as they were cursed in the wilderness and as they had to endure later captivity, so also you may well have the same unhappy lot. From this angle the two passages tell a fairly impressive story. But what of the details?

 

The change to "beyond Babylon" was probably intended to be interpretative. Amos and his contemporaries did not know

where

they would be called on to suffer, only that it was to be somewhere "beyond Damascus." With hind–sight it was easy for Stephen, or any of his hearers, to fill in more precisely. The reading given by Stephen varies markedly from the Hebrew text in Amos. Instead, as in all his other Old Testament quotes, he adheres almost exactly to the Septuagint text. Then, because of the inspiration that was in him, this Septuagint reading must be accepted here as superior. The "Chiun" reading in Amos should surely be discarded as an O.T. textual corruption, especially since Stephen's Septuagint is so much more intelligible, thus: "The god Rephan" is probably Rapha' with a Graecized ending, that is, "the star of the giant god (Orion = Nimrod) types (in the sky) which ye appointed for worship." (It is rather remarkable that Chiun (Amos5:26) is so like Greek: KUON, Dog. Any connection with Dog Star, Sirius, which follows Orion across the sky? (The point is not being pressed.)

[Resource Manager]

14. Stephen's denunciation: "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?" is written off as an exaggeration.

 

It is true that the Old Testament has only a handful of examples of prophets being put to death by their contemporaries, but the fact remains that of those prophets about whose lives and experiences much is known, almost all were made miserable by the hostility which they had to face from their own people. How many exceptions to this besides Samuel and Nathan and Jonah? And did not Jesus himself make the same assessment as Stephen?: "for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Was Stephen quoting his Lord's words?).

 

15. "Ye received the Law by the disposition of angels." This statement, commonplace to Stephen's rabbinic audience, is dubbed an advance on the angel­ology of the Old Testament, inasmuch as there is no explicit statement that the Law was min­istered to Moses through angels.

 

In reply to this, Dt. 33:2 may surely be cited as providing fairly explicit support for Stephen's declaration (and so also Ex. 31:17,18, when due weight is given to the word "re­freshed," which is meaningless as applied to the Almighty, but not inappropriate with reference to an angel).

 

* * *

 

In the light of the foregoing sequence of brief considerations, it is perhaps not inappropriate to enquire who is the more dependable in handling the Scriptures – Stephen or his critics?

[Resource Manager]

27. Stephen's Defence (7:1–50)

 

With a remarkably mild form of expression the high priest invited Stephen to speak in his own defence. Without the information that his face was "as the face of an angel" (6:15), this unexpected absence of hostility would be something of a difficulty. Already, by this very fact, the charge of blasphemy was answered.

 

And apparently Stephen knew that this divine radiance in his face was visible to the assembly, for he began; "The God of the Glory", i.e. 'this Glory which you now see in me'. It was a title which the early church readily trans­ferred to Jesus: "The Lord of the Glory" (Jas.2:1; 1 Cor. 2:8).

 

Charged with speaking "blas­phemous words against this holy place (the temple)." Stephen proceeded to develop at length the theme that much of God's greatest work was independent of the temple, and indeed of the Holy Land, the implication being that veneration of that impressive, but as yet uncompleted, edifice need not be a necessary part of the religion of any good Jew. He might have asked also why the Jews turned a blind eye to the fact that the existing temple was being built for them by the Herods, as evil a set of thugs as they had ever known in all their history.

 

The geographical allusions in Stephen's speech, now catalogued here, form a main strand in Stephen's argu­ment: Jerusalem and its temple are holy and venerable, but not necessary.

 

Verse

 

2, 4 The Shekinah Glory appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia (as also to Ezekiel!) and in Haran.

6. God guided Abraham's seed into Egypt.

8. Circumcision was not associated with the temple.

9. God was with Joseph in Egypt, but not with his brothers in the Land.

12. Corn in Egypt for God's people.

15. And sanctuary also. The Fathers died there,

16. and were buried in Shechem (now a great Samaritan centre). Buried too in a Hittite grave.

17. Israel multiplied in Egypt.

21. Moses was brought up by Pharaoh's daughter,

29. and was welcomed in Midian.

30. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in Sinai,

33. and called it holy ground.

36. God gave signs and wonders in Egypt, the Red Sea, and the wilderness.

47. Solomon's temple was a failure.

48. The Most High (this is God's out­standing Gentile name) "dwelleth not in temples made with hands."

49. Through Isaiah God explicitly rejected all temples of stone and splendour.

 

A further charge against Stephen was, of course, his advocacy of the claims and authority of Jesus of Nazareth. In reply, without so much as mentioning the name of his Master, he drew sustained attention to the remarkable parallel so readily traceable between Joseph and Jesus. As the discourse proceeded, the build–up of resemblances between the two, would impress itself more and more on the minds of that Biblically well–read assembly. It is true that Luke's report devotes only five verses to this phase of Stephen's speech, but it is almost impossible to believe that that was all that this learned man of God had to say on this topic. The Joseph type is so detailed and extensive that one is bound to believe this part of Acts 7 to be a brief précis of all that was said on this score:

 

Verse

 

9. Joseph, because of the envy of those who should have revered him, was rejected and sold for money. But God was with him. God can even use the hard–heartedness of men to fulfil His redeeming purpose.

10. So Joseph was delivered, and glorified before the Gentiles.

11. The famine affliction of Israel and his family hints at the imminent affliction of those Judaists now rejecting Jesus. They "find no sustenance" because incapable of believing that he(Jesus) is alive and in heaven, a glorious and powerful high priest.

12. At the first encounter, no recognition (so Stephen was clearly convinced that his con­temporaries would reject the gospel). "Corn in Egypt" pre­figures the gospel among the Gentiles. If Jews are to survive, they must join the Gentiles serving "Joseph".

13. Succour for a suffering people at the second attempt (the Second Coming), but only then because recognized and acknowledged by his brethren (as by the Gentiles already).

[Resource Manager]

Then, with a short bridge passage, Stephen passed on to develop a similar God–designed parallel between Moses and Jesus. "Blasphemous words against Moses" was another of the charges bitterly laid against Stephen. So, in his vindication of Jesus he exposed the double blasphemy of the nation in having rejected Moses' divine mission and, more recently, "the prophet like unto Moses."

 

Verse

 

20. The child of promise–"fair for God"–was saved when Gentile Pharaoh behaved like Gentile Herod against the babies of Israel.

22. Moses was mighty in words and in deeds, and king elect.

23. He became a God–sent redeemer. 25–28 His salvation was rejected by a nation that should have been eager to acclaim and follow him.

26. There was division in the nation over his claim to be a God–sent deliverer.

27. Especially they spurned his claim to be a ruler and a judge.

29. He was betrayed to the Gentile overlord. In "retirement" in a distant land he begat two sons (Jew and Gentile?).

30. After forty years a further opportunity of deliverance.

35,36 After many wonders and signs, Israel were delivered at last by the very man they had so emphatic­ally rejected.

37: Moses pointedly declared that he was a type of One greater than himself. "Him shall ye hear."

38. Instead of Moses and the angel of the Lord, there is now Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

38. Instead of living oracles given to Moses in the mount, there is a greater revelation through Jesus at God's right hand (v.56).

39. Israel in spirit turned back to Egypt, saying (in effect): "We have no king but Pharaoh."

40. They spoke with contempt of "this Moses" just as now they reprobate "this Jesus" (6:14) And they chose to say: "We wot not what is become of him" when they knew perfectly well where he was!

 

A further charge against Stephen was that he spoke "blasphemous words against the Law." So, in reply, he hammered away at Israel's long–continued disloyalty to the Law they claimed to revere — the implication being: "Like fathers, like sons." The same accusation was still valid against those who accused him!

 

5, 17. Could the Law be greater than the Promise given on the oath of God?

38. The Law is divine in its origin and authority. Yet –

39,40. Israel were astray from it from the first.

42,43. And so always!

41–43.Moses was superseded by the people's own religious tradition and their own works.

42. They worshipped the host of heaven: (a) stars; (b) angels who ministered the Law. (A lovely double meaning here!)

40, 43.They preferred shadow to substance, the incomplete to the Perfect.

44. The Tabernacle itself, made under Moses' direction, was a shadow and temporary.

45. Jesus–Joshua was the true successor of Moses, taking pos­session of the Gentiles.

52, 53 The Law had been kept by only one Holy One!

 

Yet another charge against Stephen was that he had spoken "against this place" (6:14)–the temple. His reply included these arguments:

 

44. God was worshipped first in a tabernacle; and even then only by a faithful remnant (ecclesia; v.38) in a wilderness.

45. And this system lasted for 400 years.

46. All David's worship was associated with the tabernacle. If a temple was so important, wouldn't he have been allowed to build it?

47. The temple was built by Solomon, the first apostate king.

42. Even the prophets (e.g. Amos) denounced the temple system, and foretold its destruction (so why should not I, Stephen, do the same?)

46. David wished to build a house for God; but instead God promised to build him a house (i.e. a prosperous line). Solomon built a temple (v.47), but God doesn't dwell in temples of that sort (v.48). Instead, He seeks a house of humble people (v.49,50) and Jesus son of David builds that house. Verse 56 proves his priesthood of that temple.

48. Temples are made–with–hands, the word which the Septuagint uses only about idolatry.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 7:1–43

2. And he said. Even apart from the strong assertions in 6:5, 8, 15; 7:55; Mt.10:19 by itself guarantees the inspiration behind this discourse.

Men, brethren. Contrast 4:8. Stephen speaks as one who has a status comparable to that of the men he addresses. What a striking contrast in v.51,52.

Appeared. The Greek verb is in passive voice, perhaps implying that God was manifested through an angel.

3. Come, as though implying "with me."

From thy father's house, omitted from the Gen. 12:1 quote, probably means the temple of the moon–god where his father worshipped (Josh. 24:2).

4. When his father was dead. Suggesting a recognition of the Fifth Commandment, and even at the expense of the First; and perhaps also implying: And you may have to bid farewell to the religion of your fathers.

5. Not so much as to set his foot on. Quoted from Dt. 2:5, implying Abram was as much a wanderer and a pilgrim as Israel were in the wilderness (cp. also Gen. 8:9). The phrase emphasizes: No legal right! True of Isaac and Jacob also.

7. Serve me. Greek: latreuo, serve in worship, by contrast with their service in Egyptian bondage.

In this place. Certainly Sinai, as Ex. 3:12 shows. The Hebrew word implies "a holy place."

8. And so; i.e. thus, through circumcision, was born Isaac (but not Ishmael), the child of the covenant.

9. Sold Joseph into Egypt. Actually it was the Midianites (circumcised Ishmaelites!) who did this, but of course the brothers knew, and intended, what would transpire. Compare the way in which Christ was delivered to a Gentile, and crucifixion insisted on.

God was with him. Very emphatically stated in Gen. 39:2, 21, 23.

Compare also Luke 1:28,66. Joseph, a prototype Immanuel.

10. Delivered. Greek middle voice here implies: Not primarily for his own benefit, but for the furtherance of God's plan of redemption.

Delivered him out of all his afflictions. Paul, in prison like Joseph, quotes these words with reference to himself: 2 Tim. 3:11. This entire verse is packed with allusions to the Septuagint version of the story of Joseph.

13. Kindred. Pharaoh already knew that Joseph was of Hebrew race. Now his actual family was made known to him.

14. In 200 years, Abraham's seed numbered 75 persons. Contrast the next 200 years!

16. Were carried over i.e. the twelve patriarchs, not Jacob.

Hamor. Probably a dynastic title, like Pharaoh, Benhadad, Abimelech.

18. Another. The word means "a different sort of Pharaoh," i.e. a new dynasty.

Knew not. This might mean "not acquainted with" or "unable to remember" Joseph; or, idiomatically, "took no account of, thought nothing of."

19. Dealt subtilty. Almost the same word in 2 Pet. 1:16 suggests the idea; "cooked up a cunning scheme." Cast out. The Greeks used this word for the exposure of unwanted babies.

20. Exceeding fair. This could read "fair for God," i.e. not Just a good–looking child, but one with a special place in God's purpose.

21. Took him up. This double–meaning word also signifies "destroyed" – she "destroyed" him from being a Hebrew child.

22. All the wisdom of the Egyptians, especially what they had learned from Joseph; Ps. 105:22.

Mighty in words and in deeds. Possibly this was already a familiar phrase amongst the Jews to describe Moses. In that case, it looks as though it was taken up by the Lord's disciples to describe him, as "the Prophet like unto Moses;" Lk. 24:19. Josephus has a story (2.10.2) glorifying Moses as a young man; but certainly the tale about him marrying an Ethiopian princess is pure fantasy.

23. Literally: And when was fulfilled for him a time of forty years. This might mean a revelation telling Moses when he was to make his effort at deliverance. See on v.25.

Visit Gen. 50:14; Ex. 4 31; both passages supporting the view taken here of v.25.

It came into his heart. Jer. 32:35; Ez. 38:10 suggest plan, intention.

 

[Resource Manager]

24. Defended. Gk. middle voice implies Moses' own emotional involvement, or perhaps that he meant this redemption of one Israelite as a token of his plan for the nation.

25. Supposed. Rather "he reasoned" – from the promise made to Abraham? Gen. 15:13–16. The verb forms that follow mean that Moses reasoned that his brethren were understanding that God was delivering them (i.e. then) by his hand. This is very different from the common and utterly wrong idea that here was a headstrong self–confident young man too impatient to await God's good time. (This notion, if correct, makes a sorry mess of Stephen's attempt to present Moses as a type of Christ! The more correct idea makes a perfect parallel with the ministry and rejection of Jesus). Dt. 9:24 also plainly implies that this was a divine deliverance. The fact that the slain Egyptian was hidden in the sand implies that this first move towards deliverance met with little approval from Moses' people; v.35a, Cp. Jn. 1:11.

But they understood not makes a dramatic antithesis (cp. v.53). The Greek perfect tense implies: "and they still don't understand (the deliverance offered through Jesus)."

26. Would have. The original implies a sustained effort at reconciliation.

Set them at one again. More exactly: "drawn them together into peace." Did Stephen mean peace with God? this Is very often the meaning of "peace" in Scripture.

Ye are brethren. Cp. Gen. 13:8. But Israel forgot this, as in Joseph's day (v.9), and Stephen's – and, alas, the New Israel in the 19th and 20th centuries. Sirs is very respectful. They were both leaders in Israel.

Why do ye wrong? They both did wrong, the one persecuting (because his fellow expressed faith in Moses as saviour), and the other in resisting the evil, and in the assumption: Moses needs me to help him out! But note the emphasis in v.27.

27. In this response to Moses' expostulation the important word is the first: Who? And the correct answer to that question is: God did! But this was challenged by an unbelieving people.

A ruler and a judge. Jesus alluded to these words in Lk. 12:14, implying: Only when Israel is ready to accept me as their Deliverer am I prepared to fill the role of ruler and judge.

29. Fled. Not for fear of his life, but because his own people were taking sides with the Egyptians against him. Ex.2:14: "The word (about my plan) is made known (by my brethren, to the Egyptians)."

Two sons. Gershom may mean: (a) A stranger there (where? in Midian or in Egypt?); (b) Banished by the people! Eliezer, named at circumcision, after the burning bush, means: My God is my help.

30. Forty years, a hint at a possible deliverance by Jesus forty years after this rejection of him?

Expired is really "fulfilled," the word used of fulfilment of a prophecy (v.23). Then is it possible to infer that Moses had been told by God to stay away from Egypt for forty years? (see note on v.32).

31. Wondered (a) why it should be on fire; (b) why it was not consumed?

Behold really means "consider."

32. The God of thy fathers. But Ex. 3:6 has singular "father". This plural is from 3:15,16 – another example of the compression in Luke's reporting of this speech; cp. also v.36,43.

Trembled. Very often this means fear at having done something to displease God; Acts 24:25; 9:16; 16:29; 1 Sam. 16:4; Gen. 27:38. Then was Moses fearful for having shown a disobedient spirit? It was very near the end of his time in Midian when he married, intending to settle down there. Many details in Ex. 3,4 chime in with this.

Durst not behold. Here Stephen cannot refrain from emphasizing the difference between Moses and Christ ascended to the Father's right hand.

Groaning. Deliverance comes to God's people when they beg for it.

35. This Moses Five times in v.35–38. Contrast 6:14.

Judge becomes deliverer, redeemer, implying near kinsman (Heb. go'el); cp. v.25: brethren. The change of word implies: not condemnation, but succour, through Jesus as through Moses. And Jesus will be judge also; v.60.

In the ecclesia, the faithful remnant, not in the nation.

Angel – singular; i.e. the angel of the covenant.

37. Raise up could imply resurrection.

Like unto me. Stephen's argument requires this reading, and not R.V.

Him shall ye hear. Mt. 17:5. As they did not receive Moses' first attempt at deliverance, so also with Jesus. Even Moses' later deliverance was accompanied by much Israeli murmuring and rebellion (v.39). But not so in the (here implied) second coming of Jesus: "Him shall ye hear."

39. Would not: i.e. had no wish to! Note the triple condemnation:

v.39: They preferred the materialism of this world.

 

[Resource Manager]

v.40: They lacked faith.

v.41: They worshipped their own ideas.

In their hearts. Emphasis here on cool decision, rather than on emotional inclination.

40. Gods. This proves that elohim in Ex. 32:1 does not mean a god, as in RVm. The golden calf was intended to be the first of a set.

Before, i.e. in time (so Gk.), rather than place. Then was the golden calf intended to placate Egypt when the Israelites returned?

41. A close paraphrase of Ps. 106:19LXX.

Rejoiced. Gk. impf: they continued to rejoice.

This verse covers wilderness apostasy, and goes at a 500–years leap to the calves of Dan and Bethel; v.42.

42. Turned. They turned (v.39), so God did; Josh. 24:20; Is. 63:10; Rom. 1:24.

Have ye ...? Am. 5:25 and Gk. here both imply: No! But now Moloch and the rest.

42, 43 are intended as quick summary of Israel's later period.

43. Moloch. Lev. 20:2,3. It has been cleverly surmised that in Amos the Massorites pointed the text to read Siccuth (RV), Chiun, to suggest the vowels of Shiqqutz, abomination.

Babylon. Did Stephen imply: If it was apostasy which took your fathers to Babylon, what brought you under Rome now? Since Babylon was a current Jewish nickname for Rome, there may be a hint here of a coming destruction – of the temple, as by Nebuchadnezzar.

44. Stephen now reverts to the wilderness story in order to pick up a fresh line of argument about the sanctuary of God.

Tabernacle of Witness, so called because of the Ten Words (Ex. 31:18), all broken by Israel.

Fashion is really "type", as though implying a higher reality; Heb. 8:5; 9:23, 24.

45. Before the face of. Cp. Dt. 11:23 Heb.

46. Desired to build. Quoting Ps. 132:4, 5.

Found favour. This is O.T. idiom for "had his request granted"; see concordance on "find grace."

Tabernacle. This word covers both tent and temple (e.g. Ps. 46:4).

The God of Jacob. Almost certainly, allusion to Ps. 24:5 LXX. It is the psalm with which David brought the ark to Zion. 48.

Most High. This divine name is often used with Gentile associations.

Not in temples. Jn. 4:21,22. Here, in effect, Stephen pleads "Guilty," but hardly as they meant. Solomon also said the same: 2 Chr. 6:18.

Made with hands. In LXX this word normally means idols; v.41: Ps. 115:4; Mk. 15:48?

49. The true context of Is. 66:1,2 is 65:17–25, the Messianic Age. At that time, the "resting place" of God (2 Chr. 6:41) will be the man who trembles at His Word.

50. My hand. God may rejoice in the work of His own hands, but no man has that right. In this Is. 66 quotation Stephen was, of course, leading his hearers on to "him that trembleth at my Word (Jesus)."

[Resource Manager]

28. Accusers accused (7:51–53)

 

There are those commentators who suggest that Stephen, having reached the climax of his "apology" or "defence" (without mentioning the name of Jesus once!), now lost control of himself and instead of vindicating himself against the three main charges levelled against him, burst out into a tirade of denun­ciation of those who had brought him to trial.

 

Such a conclusion is surely a mistake. Indeed Luke seems to go out of his way to fend off such an error by his repetition that Stephen was "full of the Holy Spirit" (v.55; cp. 6:3, 5, 8, 10, 15).

 

In any case, the development of ideas strongly suggests that Stephen's sequence was fully intended; for the quotation from Isaiah 66, so familiar to that Bible–instructed Sanhedrin, would run on in their heads: " ... but to this man will I look (for my dwelling place), even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word." Instead, to their consternation and confusion, Stephen went on: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye."

 

Here was the logical conclusion of the long inexorable build–up of historical review which had taken up so much time and attention. Like Father, like son! From the very first, whilst still at mount Sinai, Israel had been stiff–necked – a stubborn beast like that which they made to worship — and for which disloyalty, but for the earnest intercession of Moses, the wrath of heaven would have slain them. "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they" (Dt. 9:13, 14).

 

Now the situation was the same, or worse. But Stephen would not "let God alone"–"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge". However, within forty years retribution became inevitable. As a nation Israel was swept away, and replaced in the esteem of God by Gentiles spiritually "mightier and greater than they" (Mt. 21:43; Pr. 29:1).

 

In these last days of the kingdom, they were no better, but rather worse: "To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it (contrast Isaiah's phrase: 'tremble at my word')" (Jer. 6:10–the entire chapter needs to be read as a full–blooded warning to a nation again teetering on the brink of destruction).

 

In this vigorous indictment Stephen was but following the pattern set by his Lord:

 

"Ye build the tombs of the prophets ... and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers ... that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed in the Land ... Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come on this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee ..." (Mt. 23:29–37; cp.2 Chr. 36:16).

 

Stephen's censure went on in precisely the same vein: "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit." Here he chose the exact equivalent of the Hebrew name Meribah, associated with the waters of strife in the wilderness of Zin and at Kadesh (Ex. 17:7; Num. 27:14). Here now was another perverse generation emu­lating the stubborn wilfulness of their fathers.

 

In a most eloquent passage Isaiah had given his solemn reminder of how, even though the angel of God's presence had saved them, and God Himself had borne them, and carried them all the days of old, they had nevertheless "rebelled, and grieved his Holy Spirit" (Is. 63:8–14). Once again, the only thing that could save them was a contrite spirit and a humble loyalty to the Leader God had given them.

[Resource Manager]

The charge unanswered

 

This resistance to the witness of the Holy Spirit in Jesus and now in Stephen was only the first of three counter-­charges which this eloquent fearless servant of Christ now pressed home:

 

a. Resisting the Holy Spirit.

b. Murdering the Man of God.

c. Not keeping the law they professed to revere.

 

Always their self–vindication had expressed itself in venomous hatred and persecution of the faithful spokesmen of the Lord: "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?"

 

Even as he rammed this charge home Stephen took comfort from the memory of his Lord's reassurance:

 

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you ... for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you" (Mt. 5:11, 12).

 

Up to this point Stephen had won the attention of his learned audience not only by his eloquence and Biblical erudition, but also by the way in which he had bidden them identify with "our fathers" (v.39 etc). But now, to point a bitter contrast, the pronoun changed: "As your fathers did, so do ye" (v.51, 52).

 

"They (your fathers) slew them which shewed before the coming of the Just One (3:14; ls. 53:11)."At the hands of the fathers both Joseph and Moses had come within an inch of death. And Isaiah, who foretold more of "the Just One" than any other prophet, was "sawn asunder."

 

Yet this entail of guilt–"We have sinned with our fathers" (Ps. 106:6)–was a small thing compared with their latest crime, personally committed: "Of the Just One ye have now become the betrayers and murderers." The story of the rejection of Joseph and Moses had gone home. The divine Saviour, whom those two national heroes had foreshadowed, had suffered at their hands. What crime could be more heinous?

 

And what they reckoned their greatest glory and virtue — the honouring of Moses' Law – was their next biggest sin; for in countless ways, whilst being scrupulously literal, in wholesale fashion they had flouted the spirit of commandments written with the finger of God and ministered by angels.

 

In searing words Stephen excoriated these holy men who sought his life. How he had turned the tables on them! Caring little for what might become of himself, he exposed their consciences to the dazzling glare of Holy Scripture and the unimpeachable facts about Jesus of Nazareth. Would they muster the honesty to repent, and so save not only themselves but also their nation from impending well–merited wrath?

 

 

 

Notes: 7:51–53

51. Stiff–necked ... uncircumcised. Modern equivalents: heretics, infidels! For the latter, consider Lev. 26:41; Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:26; Ez. 44:9; Rom. 2:25; and Dt. 10:16, 17, with its reference to "regarding not persons, nor taking reward"–two principles infringed in Stephen's trial. Saul of Tarsus, listening to this denunciation, was to echo its sentiments in later days: e.g. 1 Th. 2:15, 16.

52. Which of the prophets ... ? Cp. Mt. 21:35–37.

The Just One; s.w. Mt. 23:29; Is. 53:11.

53. By disposition of angels. Cp. v.38; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2– based on Dt. 33:2.

[Resource Manager]

29. The death of Stephen (7:54–60)

 

Luke surely had the story of the lynching of Stephen from Paul himself. His brief account is packed with vivid dramatic detail.

 

The climax of denunciation to which the Lord's witness came at last, was too much for the assembly which up to this moment had let him go uninterrupted. Now, "cut to the heart" (5:33) – literally: "sawn in two in their hearts" – they "gnashed on him with their teeth." It is remarkably easy to get the wrong impression from these phrases. The first does not mean that their emotions were aroused (though that was certainly the case by this time), But rather: their thinking was cut in two, they had become men of divided convictions (how true specially of Saul of Tarsus!). There was no escaping the impact of Stephen's sustained Biblical reasoning, yet prejudice and self–interest alike refused consent to the inevitable conclusion.

 

They sat there grinding their teeth, not "upon him" (as EV text), but "regarding him" and what he had said (same phrase in Rev. 1:7). This attitude had continued through much of Stephen's discourse. The words describe neither regret nor remorse (as they are often mistakenly read in the gospels) but anger; compare Ps. 112:10; Job 16:9; Pr. 19:12LXX.

 

A vision of Christ

 

Stephen, unperturbed by the signs of their intensifying hostility, was not to be hindered in his witness. Looking stead­fastly into heaven precisely as the apostles had done at the time of the Ascension (1:10), he, like them, witnessed a remarkable vision of the Shekinah Glory of God, and the men before him saw that glory reflected in his face (6:15). Men of Israel could not "steadfastly behold" the glory in the face of Moses (2 Cor. 3:7). But this saint in Christ, pure in heart, saw God and was made bold for his final word of witness.

 

The vision took a specific form. He "saw the heavens opened," as Ezekiel had done (1:1) and as happened also at his Lord's baptism (Mk. 1:10), and Christ there in glory, "standing on the right hand of God," as though he were a High Priest ministering in a true Holy of Holies. Yet it was not to exercise his priestly mediation that Jesus now (in this unique place of Scripture) stood in the heavenly Presence (Heb. 10:10, 11), but in order to claim fulfilment of his Father's promise: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance" (Ps. 2:8). Already there was palpable evidence that the chosen race was hardening in its rejection of their Messiah. So now surely was the time when God's wider purpose of gathering in Gentiles should go into operation: "Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord ... And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob ... I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth" (Is. 49:5, 6).

 

Stephen, ecstatic at sight of the heavenly vision and recognizing the person of his Lord told what he saw, consciously employing almost the very words which that same high priest and Sanhedrin had heard from the lips of Jesus at his trial: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (compare Mt. 26:64; and contrast Acts 7:33). Here was not only Psalm 110, which these learned men had heard quoted by Jesus to their own confusion (Mt. 22:41–46), but also in the use of "Son of man" (the only time that title was used by other than Jesus himself) there was deliberate appropriation of Dan. 7:13 with its vision of a Son of man ascended to the presence of the Ancient of days and receiving authority over Gentiles (v.14) as well as Jews.

 

The force of Stephen's sensational words was not lost on these men, least of all on Saul of Tarsus, the most nimble mind in that assembly. It could well have been he who led the shout with which that august gathering, abandoning all dignity, sought to drown any continuing testimony of faith. Symbolically expressing their horror at Stephen's "blasphemy", many of them clapped their hands over their ears; thus without intending it, they made clear confession that for all their learning they lacked an answer to their prisoner's Biblical reasoning.

[Resource Manager]

A prophecy about Stephen

 

Luke's record here is packed with subtle Biblical allusions. "They stopped their ears" is taken from Psalm 58:4. It is a psalm which quite marvellously declares a special relevance to Stephen and Saul.

Psalm 58

Acts 7

1. Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation (Sanhedrin)? Do ye judge judge uprightly, O ye sons of men! 2. The violence of your hands. 3. The wicked are estranged from the womb. Speaking lies. 4. Like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ears. 5. The voice of charmers charming never so wisely. 6. Break their teeth, O God. 7. Let them be as cut in pieces. 8. Like the untimely birth of a woman. That they may not see the sun (Heb: CHaZaH, see in vision.)

The perversion of judgement in Stephen's condemnation. Saul was one of the judges. Contrast: "Son of man." Stoning. "As you fathers did, so do ye." The charges against Stephen. "They stopped their ears." Stephen's eloquence. "They gnashed with their teeth." "They were cut to the heart." 1 Cor. 15:8: Saul – "as of one born out of due time." Stephen saw the Glory of God.

 

 

Violent reaction

 

Again, the phrase "they ran upon him with one accord" uses the same uncommon verb which describes the Gadarene swine charging down the hillside (Mk. 5:13). It describes also the madness of the mob at Ephesus (Acts 19:29). And what a different sort of unanimity was this "one accord" from that displayed so graciously in the lives of the brethren (s.w.2:46; 5:12)! The Greek phrasing should not be read as implying absence of deliberation or vote among the judges, especially since "Saul was consenting unto his death" suggests the opposite (cp.26:10).

 

In irrepressible anger, with one accord (1:14; 2:1) they dragged Stephen out of the hall of judgement, out of the temple area, out of the city, to "the Place of Stoning," (according to tradition, identical with Golgotha; cp. Heb. 13.12) as though he were a blasphemer (Lev. 24:11,14) or a leprous thing (Lev. 14:40). And there with grim intent, men peeled off their long outer robes and laid them at the feet of Saul of Tarsus, a young sanhedrist (how old?) already earmarked as successor to the great Gamaliel because of his fantastic knowledge and outstanding zeal for the Law.

[Resource Manager]

Saul the judge

 

But if indeed Saul was so overflowing with righteous indignation against the believers, why did he not lustily join in the stoning of Stephen? The Biblical answer to this question brings to light an attractive "undesigned coincidence."

 

The Law (Dt. 17:4–7) instructed that when there is serious religious divergence,

 

"and it be told thee,

and thou hast heard,

and enquired diligently,

and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain:

then thou shalt bring forth that man ...

unto thy gates, and shalt stone him

with stones."

 

In the stoning, "the hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people."

 

Now, in the next legal paragraph, a careful distinction is made between the judge (v.12) and "all the people." Thus the implication behind v.4–7 is that no judge was to be involved in the actual stoning. This was to be carried out by witnesses and the rest of the people.

 

It is not difficult to infer that at the trial of Stephen, Saul was one of the judges. The expression: "Saul was consenting unto his death" (8:1) implies this. More explicitly, Saul's own words carry the same meaning: "And when they (i.e. persecuted saints) were put to death, I gave my voice (vote; literally; pebble) against them" (26:10).

 

Here, then, is as tidy an explanation as could be wished regarding Saul's behaviour. The inference that the judge was not to take part in execution of a sentence means that a scrupulous Pharisee judge like Saul would feel himself barred from the actual stoning, much as his zeal would urge him to vigorous participation. So instead he made as positive a public gesture as he could — he attended the stoning in person, and showed his complete approval of what was almost a lynching by volunteering to look after the garments of the men who fired the first volley of stones.

 

A thousand years before, David had enunciated the principle in Israel that "as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff" (1 Sam. 30:24, 25). So, that day, before God Saul was as much respons­ible for the death of Stephen as if he had personally thrown the stones (compare Rom. 1:32).

 

Perhaps it is possible to argue from omission that Saul's burning indignation was not directed against any of the apostles, but only against un–Judaistic disciples like Stephen. The apostolic immunity (8:1) and the ensuing campaign in Damascus and other places (9:2) might suggest this. Not a few details in Stephen's speech had implied a widening purpose of God embracing Gentiles as well as Jews. Would anything be likely to exasperate Pharisee Saul more than this?

 

Yet this truth, about a gospel for Gentiles as well as Jews, had already sunk into his unwilling mind (see ch.34). Does this explain why, when the risen Christ was seen by Stephen and Saul, he was seen in a blaze of glory surpassing the experience of the apostles during the forty days? (Consider again Is. 49:5, 6).

 

As the execution began, Stephen repeatedly looked up to heaven, appealing not to Caesar but to Christ his Lord. It is even possible that the Greek expression should be translated: "call­ing (the name of Christ) upon himself" (as in 9:14; 22:16; Jas. 2:7). If so, then he may have been making repeated bold confession: "I believe in Jesus of Nazareth; I belong to him; his Name was named on me in my baptism."

 

It is remarkable that in this long and much–compressed chapter the name of Jesus does not occur until this tragic point, the last verse but one.

[Resource Manager]

"Receive my spirit"

 

Struck repeatedly by stones, and coming near to losing consciousness, saintly Stephen sank to his knees, and, like his Master on the cross, he prayed: "Lord, receive my spirit." But Jesus had offered this prayer to his Father (Ps. 31:5; Lk. 23:46). Now Stephen prayed the same prayer to Jesus. And he too "cried with a loud voice."

 

Misunderstood, the words are treasured by those who believe in an immediate disembodied immortality in heaven when death supervenes. Yet how to reconcile such an idea with the emphatic conviction, so often expressed in the New Testament, of resurrection of the body at the last day, is not usually made clear, or even attempted.

 

But what did Stephen — and his Master – mean?

 

The Old Testament counterpart to these words is in Ecclesiastes: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return to God who gave it" (12:7). Here the word "return" is the key to a proper understanding. It implies going back to where one has come from. But since no individual has ever had any memory of a conscious existence in heaven before beginning life on earth, the word "return" can hardly be taken to mean a conscious existence in heaven when this life is over.

 

Then what is the "spirit" which returns to God and is "received" by Him? The Book of Job explains: "If he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together" (34:14,15). The life power of every individual comes from God, and returns to Him. Hence Paul's conviction at a time when he knew he had not long to live: "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1:12), that is, the day of "his appearing" (4:8).

 

Stephen's first confession of faith was an exact parallel to this. His words: "Receive my spirit" imply: "Accept my life as a sacrifice readily offered." Similarly, martyred saints are spoken of as "souls under the altar" (Rev. 6:9). The figure is that of life–blood being poured out, like that of an animal sacrifice, at the base of God's altar. But what a difference in one respect–that whilst these also cry "with a loud voice," their blood cries for vengeance on their persecutors (2 Chr. 24:22) whereas Stephen prayed for mercy on his: "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."

 

Prayer for his enemies

 

The Law of Moses has no explicit commandment to pray for one's enemies. Yet Stephen did this (contrast 2 Chr. 24:22). Truly he was "changing the customs which Moses delivered us" (6:14). In this respect their accusation against him was true.

 

Hearing these prayers of Stephen, Saul, already breathing out threatening and slaughter, would be horrified by their "blasphemy." Now he would feel con­vinced that the drastic action taken against this disciple of Jesus of Nazareth was thoroughly justified. The time would come, and before long, when he would thankfully recall Stephen's prayer, realising now that it had been answered in his own conversion (1 Tim. 1:16).

 

Paul's imitation of Stephen

 

Rackham, ("Acts", p.109) has a brilliant note emphasizing that in days to come all that had happened to Stephen would come on Paul also: "The Jews disputed with and resisted Paul in the synagogue: he was falsely accused, mobbed at Philippi and in the temple, tried before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, stoned at Lystra. The same accusations were made against him — of blasphemy (19:37), disloyalty to Moses (21:21), and to the holy place and customs (21:28; 24:6; 25:8; 28:17). Verbally, compare "crying out' (21:28), 'rushed with one accord' and 'seized' (19:29), 'out of the city' (14:19). Further, he suffered persecution at Antioch (13:50), was dragged (14:19; cp.17:6) into prison (16:23), and was bound (21:11, 33); cp.8:1–3." Rackham might have added: And Paul was assured of a crown (Stephanos) of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:8).

[Resource Manager]

James and Stephen

 

Eusebius tells how years later (in A.D.62), James the Lord's brother was similarly stoned by the Jews, and died with the words of Stephen's prayer on his lips.

 

Thus Stephen, the most brilliant of the disciples, "fell asleep." But his work lasted; for a mighty impact had been made that day on the mind of Saul the Pharisee (9:5). And the persecution which Stephen's witness sparked off drove disciples far and wide, and every­where the message went with them (8:4; 11:19).

 

Lynch law?

 

Jesus had foretold: "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute." Opposition to the gospel was intensifying to this fulfilment. First threats, then stripes, next imprisonment, and now capital punishment.

 

How did the Jews get away with it? for regarding Jesus they themselves had confessed: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (Jn. 18:31). There are all sorts of possible explanations:

1. By this time they had worn Pilate down, so that he was now like a teacher whose class knows it can flout his efforts at discipline.
   
2. A time gap should be read into the middle of verse 57, allowing for reference to the Roman governor for ratification of their decision.
   
3. This trial of Stephen fell conveniently, or by design, in the interval between the end of Pilate's regime in A.D.36 and the arrival of the next governor Marcellus. This is precisely what happened when James was done to death at the behest of Annas, the son of Annas, in A.D.62.
   
4. Vitellius, the legate of Syria, who sacked Pilate, is known to have followed a policy of maximum con­cession and friendliness towards the Jewish leaders, and it was he who sanctioned this violence.
    
   Which of these!
   

 

 

Notes: 7:54–60

54. Cut to the heart. Not momentarily, but continuing thus. The verb is the same as in 1 Chr. 20:3LXX, where the meaning is "caused them to cut with saws." It is almost the same as in Heb. 11:37; thus Isaiah, whom Stephen had just quoted, and who was himself sawn in two, now sawed his enemies asunder!

Gnashed with their teeth. Consider Ps. 37:12 and context.

55. Full of the Holy Spirit. An expression used only of Jesus (Lk. 4:1) and Barnabas (Acts 11:24).

Standing on the right hand of God. Saul the Pharisee would readily recollect Dt. 5:31 – Moses standing by the angel of the Lord to receive commandments, statutes and judgements to be taught to Israel. And now Jesus instead of Moses! Further blasphemy, the climax of Stephen's Moses argument!

56. Gk. perfect participle: I have seen (and can still see). The phrase looks back to 6:15. Stephen's allusion to Ps. 110:1 would also encourage many of those Bible scholars to recall the preceding verse: 109:31.

57. Stopped their ears. This and cut to the heart (v.54) make designed reinforcement of the strong words in v.51.

58. Out of the city. Cp. Abel, the first Old Testament martyr; Gen. 4:8LXX. Laid ...at (Saul's) feet. Contrast 4:35.

59. Receive my spirit. The word is not infrequently used in N.T. for the New Nature in Christ; e.g. Rom. 8:1–6,9. Gal. 5:16; 1 Tim. 4:12; Col. 1:8.

60. Kneeled. So also Jesus and Paul, about to face death; Lk. 22:41; Acts 20:36; 21:5.

With a loud voice. What a contrast with the "loud voice" of his persecutors (v.57)!

[Resource Manager]

30. Persecution (8:1–4)

 

So Stephen died, horribly. And Saul, his indignation still seething against this "blasphemer" whose eloquent Biblical arguments he could in no wise confute, "was consenting unto his death." The form of the Greek verb might even suggest a steady assertion of his attitude and decision in the face of efforts (by Gamaliel?) to persuade him otherwise.

 

Indeed, if such efforts were made, they only had the effect of intensifying the heat of his indignation against these "Nazarenes." That very day (see RV), persecution of the Jerusalem ecclesia was set in train. Soon it became a roaring flame, fanned and fed by Saul the Pharisee. Yet Luke, resisting the temptation to write a long purple prose passage about the afflictions of his brethren adds only this:

 

"As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling (that is, dragging) men and women committed them to prison."

 

The apostle James' mild picture of that trauma is this: "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgement seats? Do they not blas­pheme that worthy name which was called upon you?"

 

If the phrase: "every house," is to be taken at its face value, the question arises: How did Saul know in which homes he would find believers living? There seems to be here an implication of much efficient gestapo work already undertaken before ever the storm blew up about Stephen. Or it may be that here the phrase "every house" refers to the synagogues (Houses of the Law) where believers were known to assemble.

 

In Saul's eyes these disciples of the Lord were "found false witnesses of God, because they testified that he raised up Christ, whom (Saul was convinced) he raised not up" (1 Cor. 15:15).

 

So he laid them waste. Luke's word describes a wild beast ravaging a dead body (s.w. Ps. 80:13LXX). And the tense of the verb implies that having set about this grim task, he kept at it.

 

Psalm 80 is surely remarkable as a psalm about Stephen and his fellow martyrs:

 

"Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth (the Glory seen by Stephen). Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh ... come and save us ... Cause thy face to shine (Stephen again!), and we shall be saved ... the bread of tears, tears to drink in great measure ... Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt ... and planted it (Stephen's speech) ... The boar out of the wood doth waste it (LXX: s.w. made havoc 8:3) ... Let thy hand be upon the Son of man (Stephen's phrase: 7:56) ... we will call upon thy name (as did Stephen; 7:59)".

 

Paul recalls the persecution

 

The additional details available about this persecution are the few which come in incidentally in Paul's own story about his early days as an enemy of the Faith:

 

"I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (22:4).

 

And again,

 

"Lord ... I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee" (22:19). There is here a picture of a systematic combing of all the synagogues in Jerusalem for any disciples of Jesus who might be regular attenders there.

 

And again:

 

"I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests: and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them" (26:9, 10). The plural pronouns are eloquent here. They allow of no other conclusion than that Saul had a hand in the death of a number of other faithful disciples besides Stephen, one of whom (see on chapter 26) was probably the father of John Mark.

[Resource Manager]

Paul continues:

 

"And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme" (26:11). The campaign pictured by that last sinister phrase must have lain heavily on Paul's conscience for a long while after his conversion. On his first return to Jerusalem, he surely spent long hours seeking to reclaim those whom he had earlier bullied into apostatizing from the Faith.

 

More than this:

 

"Being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities" (26:11). Again there is a significant plural: "cities," intimating that that last momentous journey to Damascus was not the only one undertaken with the same intent. How many others?

 

In another place Paul pictures the ferocity of that campaign in these words:

 

"Beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13).

 

These shameful memories meant that for the rest of his days, in spite of all his personal brilliance and superb achieve­ments in the gospel, he continued to be wondrous small in his own estimation:

 

"Not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor. 15:9), firmly believing them to be "found false witnesses of God" because "they testified that He raised up Christ" (v.15). Yet this Saul was to write himself: "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious." "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim 1:13, 15).

 

A scattering of preachers

 

Before this hurricane of hostility, the brethren (according to their Lord's commandment; Mt. 10:23), fled forth–with (Gk. aorist) in all directions. But not to seek hiding: "scattered abroad, they went everywhere preaching the word" (cp. 11:19; and note the repetition in v. 12, 25, 30, 40). There is a telling contrast here with Gamaliel's earlier allusion to Theudas whose followers "were scattered, and brought to nought" (5:36).

 

Now, as wind increases flame, so the gospel spread. It is not for nothing that here Luke chooses to use the intensive form of the very word: "scattered abroad," with which Jesus had begun his parable of the sower (Mt. 13:3). The blood of the first martyr was already proving to be the seed of the church. Jesus had bidden his disciples "pray the Lord of the harvest that he send labourers into his harvest." Now that prayer was being answered, but in a most unexpected fashion – through the ferocity of Saul the persecutor.

 

This spontaneous preaching move­ment set in motion the next phrase of the programme of evangelism which the Lord had set before the apostles (1:8) – Judaea and Samaria. Yet they did not initiate it themselves: "All scattered abroad except the apostles."

[Resource Manager]

The Apostles

 

This takes some understanding. It has been surmised that the main animus of Saul's persecution was directed against Hellenistic believers who were more ready to follow the logic of Stephen's arguments and, letting go rigorous observance of Judaistic tradition, were inclined to take the gospel to Gentiles also. But the apostles, showing themselves to be good Judaists, were let alone.

This explanation may not be the right one. For undoubtedly the vast majority of the disciples in Jerusalem would be men and women who had been reared in a careful observance of Jewish tradition and who would naturally continue to have this as their way of life after they came to faith in Jesus. Only a few, relatively, would be of the less rigid Hellenistic type. Certainly in later days (21:20) the many thousands of believers in Jerusalem were "all zealous of the law".

 

But at this time, "all scattered abroad" indicates a complete–but only temporary (9:26)–break up of the ecclesia. And the only alternative explanation of apostolic immunity seems to be that the Twelve went underground, staying in Jerusalem as the best centre from which to operate direction of the many small com­munities of believers now scattered through the land (Jn. 10:13).

 

There is an early tradition that the Twelve had been bidden stay in Jerusalem for a period of twelve years. If this explanation is not accepted, the only alternative is to believe that for some strange reason the apostles showed themselves rather lethargic about embarking on their wider assignment of evangelism (Mt. 28:19; Mt. 16:15), and therefore God first raised up Saul the persecutor to scatter the brethren and their message, and then went on to convert the persecutor into the world's most efficient preacher of the gospel, specially to Gentiles in "the uttermost part of the earth."

 

Here is the first noteworthy use in Acts of the lovely Greek word for "preach." It means "to carry a good message," and is used – remarkably! –only once in the gospels, but no less than 24 times by Luke and 22 (24?) times by Paul (it is their word!).

 

Stephen's burial

 

Stephen would surely have died the more happy had he been able to foresee the remarkable outcome of his own faithful work. His interment provided a further impressive witness for the Faith, for devout men gathered up his battered body and at his burial, undeterred by the virulence of Saul, “they made great lamentation over him." It was Jewish custom that there be no lamentation over the death of a man who had been stoned. So here was open proclamation of Stephen's innocence.

 

Who were these devout men? In the fourth century Augustine quoted a not unlikely tradition that they included Gamaliel and Nicodemus, and that the name of Stephen was inscribed on the tomb in Aramaic – Chaliel, garland (= stephanos, crown). And that tomb may well have been the tomb in which Stephen's Lord had lain.

 

Another of these "devout men" was surely the apostle James. Elsewhere ("The Epistle of James," by H.A.W.) James 5:1–11 has been expounded at length as the apostle's lamentation, protest, and exhortation at the burial of Stephen.

 

It is impossible to read such biting language (v.1–6) as an apostolic exhortation to brethren in the Faith, but if these words were addressed to wealthy Sadducees and Pharisees (including Saul?) at the graveside of Stephen, they take on an amazing relevance and force. (That paragraph could, of course, have been a rhetorical apostrophe addressed to them in their absence).

 

"Your miseries that shall come upon you (the inevitable judgement following their rejection of the gospel) ... ye have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just one (this is Stephen, not Jesus)."

 

Then turning to the disciples who were present: "Be patient therefore, brethren (i.e. show a spirit of endurance under hardship), unto the coming of the Lord ... stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh ... behold, the judge standeth before the door (James might well say this, as commentary on Stephen's words: "I see ... the Son of man standing on the right hand of God:"). Appropriately James rounded off with an exhortation about "suffering affliction and patience." With Saul of Tarsus girding up his loins for action he did well to speak thus.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 8:1–4

1. Consenting. 22:20 adds: "standing by," a Greek word often used in an aggressive sense: 4:1; 6:12; 23:27; 17:5; 1 Th 5:5; 2 Tim. 4:2,6; Lk. 20:2; 21:34. So there may be implication that Saul was one of those who actually arrested Stephen (6:12). Ch. 22:20 surely suggests that Luke had the narrative about Stephen from Paul himself.

Persecution. Bezan text adds: 'and afflictions," thus emphasizing the fulfilment of Mt. 13:21.

The church ... at Jerusalem implies that already ecclesias had come into being in other places also.

3. Made havoc. The Greek word sounds just like "eliminated;" cp. the modern use of that term!

Haling, i.e. dragging on the ground; s.w. Mic. 7:17LXX.

Women, including some of those mentioned in Lk. 8:2,3?

Men and women is beautifully illustrated (foretold) by Isaiah 40:9: "0 (man of) Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O (woman of) Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength ... be no afraid; say unto the cities of Judah ..." The Hebrew imperatives are respectively masculine and feminine.

4. Preaching. Some OT. (LXX) occurrences of this word are specially interesting: Ps. 40 9; 68:11 (Heb. fem., LXX masc.); 96:2; Is. 40:9 (Heb. fem.); 52:7; 60:6; 61:1.

[Resource Manager]

31. The Gospel in Samaria (8:5–25)

 

Next to Stephen, Philip (not the apostle; v.12, 13) was the "most wanted man" by the persecutors of the Faith (note v.26, 39). So, doubtless on advice, he left his young family (21:8), and went away on a preaching mission in Samaria. The detailed narrative of what happened there was probably given to Luke by Philip himself in later days (21:8).

 

Earlier, the Lord, although he himself had made remarkable use of a God–sent opportunity to preach the gospel in Shechem, had bidden his disciples keep away from Samaria during their first mission (Mt. 10:5) – this because of Jewish prejudice and the prior needs of "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But before his ascension this prohibition was lifted (1:8). It is a thing to be wondered at that the gospel had not been taken to Samaria long before Philip got busy. Was Jewish prejudice still at work in the minds of the believers, as it is in modern times against brown and black skins, in the minds of some?

 

Which Samaritan city Philip went to is not specified. The text might mean Samaria itself, the capital, but is it not more likely that memories of the Lord's enthusiastic reception in Shechem led Philip there? This would also help to explain his immediate enthusiastic reception — though indeed merely to learn that Philip was persecuted by the men of the temple would be sufficient to guarantee him a welcome by the Samaritans. Hatred by Judaea ensured sympathy from all Samaritans. The psychology behind this campaign was right.

 

Simon the sorcerer

 

Even so, Philip might well have been daunted, on arrival, by the powerful influence of Simon the sorcerer. By sheer cleverness and deceit and by the very magniloquence of his claims this man had reduced the city's superstitious and almost over–religious population to a state of spiritual servility. Like the Jezebel of Thyatira, who "called herself a prophetess" (Rev. 2:20), Simon "gave out that himself was some great one ... the Great Power (i.e. angel) of God." It is possible but by no means certain that this word for "great" is actually a transliteration of a Hebrew or Aramaic word for "One who is manifesting (God)." Evil men love power, reputation and money. By his imposition on people's credulity, Simon had all three. But now, all at once, his spiritual dictatorship crumbled away to nothing. Philip proclaimed not himself but Jesus as "the Great Power of God;" and he exercise his own personal endowment of the Spirit in a sustained sequence of remarkable healings such as dwarfed into insignificance the paltry conjuring tricks of Simon the mountebank. Best of all, to the intense satisfaction of those who heard, he welded together all the vivid current Messianic expectations with the name of Jesus Christ, the Saviour–King. The woman at the well had confessed to Jesus: "I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things." And Jesus had answered: "I that speak unto thee am He" (Jn. 4:25, 26).