Acts 6
LenskiCHAPTER VI
THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN
In chapters six and seven we have the story of Stephen. There is no reason for thinking that a special document was intercalated at this point by Luke or by some redactor. There is a perfect connection with the preceding. After being told about the great growth of the congregation and of its manner of taking care of the needy, we now learn that this work grew beyond the capacity of the apostles, and thus we come to Stephen, one of the seven deacons who is forever distinguished as the first martyr of the Christian Church. This fact justifies Luke for allotting so much space to Stephen and to his address in this account. At the end of the narrative about Stephen we catch our first glimpse of Saul.
Acts 6:1
1Now in these days, the disciples multiplying, there occurred a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily ministration.
Nothing of note occurred after the agitation reported in the previous chapters. The apostles continued their great work strenuously and without interference. The genitive absolute reports their continued great success: “the disciples multiplying.” It has been conservatively estimated that at this time the total number of the disciples was between twenty and twenty-five thousand. This vast increase, Luke intimates, occasioned the murmuring, subdued complaint, of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, that the widows of the former were being overlooked in the daily dispensation of support, which is beautifully called the διακονία or “ministration” which freely renders service and help for the benefit of those concerned. Here Luke calls the believers μαθηταί, “disciples,” from μανθάνω, “to learn,” but not in the sense merely of “pupils” who are still under instruction but rather in the sense of those who have already learned. And even this is not enough, for this learning was not merely intellectual, it involved the acquirement of the very spirit of the teacher. These disciples had become like their Master, they were following in his footsteps.
The Ἑλληνισταί (a word not found until it was used by Luke) were not Ἕλληνες, “Greeks,” either by extraction, by religion, or in the broader cultural sense. They were Jews fully as much as the other class that is called “Hebrews.” We read of all sorts of Hellenists in 2:9–11 and find their synagogues mentioned in 6:9. They had been reared in foreign lands, had replaced the Aramaic with the Greek language, and thus read their Scriptures only in the LXX translation. In the diaspora the second and the third generations lost their Aramaic to a great degree as the inscriptions on their tombs show. Yet they in every way remained loyal Jews. Among them there were proselytes (2:10), but these had completely adopted Judaism and thus are also designated as Jews. These Hellenists were scattered over the entire Roman world.
The Ἑβραῖοι were the Jews of Palestine and of the great eastern diaspora, Babylon, etc. Their native tongue remained Aramaic, they used the Hebrew Scriptures in their synagogues, their Greek was for the greater part imperfect, and they took a certain pride in being “Hebrews” (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5). There was, however, no clear dividing line between these two great classes of Jews. Jesus, who lived only in Palestine, needed no interpreter but himself spoke Greek to Pilate. On the other hand, Paul, who who was reared in Tarsus, perfectly preserved his Aramaic and knew his Hebrew. So also the attitude of the two classes is devoutly Jewish. “To Hellenize” meant to adopt Greek or pagan modes of life, and this corruption had contaminated the Jews, even some of their aristocratic priests, but the Hellenists we read about in the New Testament had not Hellenized themselves in this manner.
The complaint was not directed against the apostles although they must be classed as “Hebrews.” It seems as though the majority of the congregation consisted of Hebrews, and that the apostles had used assistants from this class for dispensing the needed charity. How this had been done, and how widows of the Hellenists had thus come to be overlooked, we are unable to say. We see only that the complaint was justified. How much party feeling between Hellenists and Hebrews was involved is difficult to say.
Acts 6:2
2And the Twelve, having called to them the multitude of the disciples, said: It does not please us that we, having forsaken the Work of God, keep ministering to tables. Look out for yourselves, therefore, brethren, seven attested men from yourselves, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom, whom we shall appoint for this need. But for our part, we will continue steadfast in the worship and in the ministration of the Word.
The apostles function as the leaders of the congregation. They act promptly and do not let the case become acute. Although they are apostles, they make no decision of their own a law for the congregation. There is not the least trace of popery; they deal with the members as brethren. The Twelve called the meeting and not Peter. In order to do so they must have discussed the matter among themselves and naturally would offer some proper plan for the congregation to adopt. But this amounted only to making a motion in the meeting and seconding it, after which all voted.
Luke does not need to say that only those who had attained the proper age took part in this meeting in accord with the spirit of the Fourth Commandment, Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20; likewise, he need not mention the fact that only the men voted in accord with the Jewish practice which was based on Gen. 2:18–23; 3:16, and was for this very reason the apostolic practice, 1 Tim. 2:12–14. This point has now become controversial, but exegetically neither the apostolic practice itself nor the grounds on which it rests, God’s creation and thus nature and the condition produced by the fall, can be controverted.
Perhaps Peter spoke; if this was the case, he did so merely for all the Twelve. The personal pronoun ἡμᾶς lends force to the impersonal οὑκἀρεστόνἐστι, so that this means: “It does not please us.” The matter is well stated: “that we, having forsaken the Word of God,” i. e., the preaching and the teaching of this Word, the essential task to which the apostles were called by the Lord, “keep ministering to tables,” to dispensing food for the needy. We now have διακονεῖν to correspond with the διακονία used in v. 1. The apostles were, indeed, “to minister,” but in distributing the Bread of life and not in attending to the distribution of ordinary food supplies. The words are general. Therefore it is impossible for us to learn just how the apostles had been ministering to tables.
Yet we may safely say that “tables” does not refer to the love feasts that were taking place at different houses and preceded the Eucharist. The food for these feasts was brought by the participants who readily shared with the needy. Luke has already informed us that this ministry refers to administering and distributing the large sums of money that were derived from the sale of property. From this fund the daily ministration was made.
At first the apostles shouldered this extra task without much difficulty. But now it had grown to undue proportions and interfered with their essential work. The fact that some widows were thus overlooked was only one evil result; the apostles point to one that is still worse; their being forced into a task that really does not belong to their office. This point is worth noting. The theory that all offices in the church are derived from one central office and really constitute parts of it finds no support here. This theory has led to such ideas as that when the janitor rings the bell, sweeps the church, lights the lamps, he is only substituting for the pastor.
The apostles have a different view and clearly state what the obligation of the Christian ministry is. Other tasks may arise, but these are extraneous, to be turned over to other hands. The apostles were not delegating a part of their divine office to others—they could not. They were relinquishing tasks that were not a part of this office, that were interfering with that office. To be sure, these tasks, too, need to be performed, but this necessity does not make them a part of the divinely instituted office of apostles and pastors.
Acts 6:3
3The selection of the men for this task is left to the congregation. If these men were to serve as assistants to the apostles in their apostolic work, the selection would have been made by the apostles. So Paul selected his assistants, and we know that he declined Mark’s services. But these men were to be the aids of the congregation in the ministration at tables, and so the congregation was properly told itself to choose them. The apostles merely make the proposal, suggest the necessary number, and name the qualifications the men should have. And we must note that the congregation freely adopted these restrictions.
Just why seven were proposed no one knows. It is, of course, a sacred number, but here practical considerations evidently governed. If these men were to have been assistants of the apostles, we should expect the number to be twelve and not seven. It is only a conjecture to say that at this time seven special meeting places were used by the congregation. The reason for selecting seven seems to have been obvious to the congregation, but what this reason was we cannot say.
The present participle “attested,” “witnessed to,” is qualitative and the present tense for this reason. Men who were known for their character and their ability are referred to; this was naturally consented to. Likewise, the requirement that they should be “full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom.” It is well that “wisdom” is added, for this helps us to understand just what is meant by being full of the Holy Spirit. All the disciples had the Holy Spirit, all had received one gift or another from him. The men needed for the task here considered ought to have one notable gift in an especial measure, namely to such a degree as to be recognized by the members generally. This was “wisdom,” the ability and the readiness to apply Christian knowledge to the practical affairs of life.
We at once see how necessary this gift of the Spirit would be, and how the congregation readily agreed to look for men only of this marked type. Moreover, where the Spirit gives wisdom, other gifts will also be present.
“Whom we shall appoint for this need” has no emphatic “we” and in no way implies anything hierarchical. After the election of the men by the congregation the apostles, who had had this work in their hands thus far, would turn it over to them. The idea that a fitting ceremony would be included was only natural (v. 6).
Acts 6:4
4After this arrangement has been made, the apostles expect to devote all their time to what properly constitutes their divine office which they summarize briefly as “the worship and the ministration of the Word.” The term προσευχή is frequently used in this wider sense of worship of which prayer constitutes the prominent part. That the newly created office, like everything else belonging to the life and the activity of the congregation, would be under the guidance and the leadership of the apostles and their divine office, goes without saying.
Acts 6:5
5And the word pleased before the entire multitude; and they elected for themselves Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte, an Antiochian, whom they set before the apostles. And praying, they placed on them the hands.
We may say, “the proposition” was accepted by vote. The construction with ἐνώπιον is the language of the LXX, and ἤρεσεν is like the Latin placuit when a vote is taken. The entire assembly unanimously voiced its agreement. The election was held, but we do not know in what manner except that the apostles do not seem to have made the nominations. The two most prominent men, as the following record describes them, are placed at the head of the list; we know nothing further concerning the rest. Stephen is especially distinguished as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” If πλήρης is the reading adopted, this word is regarded as indeclinable (B.-D. 137, 1).
In v. 3 the order is: “full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom”; here: “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” First the source, and then the fruit; again the fruit, and then its source. What Luke means by “faith” we see in the following: the power of personal conviction expressed in most convincing wisdom (v. 10). Stephen’s address before the Sanhedrin is the sublime expression of that faith. Philip became the evangelist and is not to be confused with Philip the apostle.
All the men chosen bear Greek names, but it would be a hasty conclusion to state that all were Hellenists when we remember that two of the apostles, who were certainly Hebrews, had Greek names, namely Andrew and Philip. We, therefore, decline to draw the conclusion that, since the complaint came from the Hellenists, the Hebrews generously turned the whole work of ministration over to the Hellenists. Some of both classes of Jews were elected, the only fair and proper course. The one named last was even a proselyte. To select one of this class was also wise. When Luke adds that he was an Antiochian, some think that this manifests Luke’s personal interest in Antioch as being the home city of himself and of Theophilus (Robertson, Luke the Historian, etc., 22).
The truth lies rather in this that, as he does in the case of Stephen, Luke writes with a view to what follows. Antioch was to become the great missionary center. More serious is the idea expressed by a few of the fathers and by some recent scholars that Nicolas became apostate and founded the Gnostic sect of the Nicolaitans mentioned in Rev. 2:6, 14. He would thus be mentioned last by Luke as a kind of traitor, like Judas. But the sole evidence furnished for this view by Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc., seems to be the name. It ought to be understood that decidedly more evidence is required in a matter of so serious a charge.
Acts 6:6
6“Whom they set before the apostles” makes the impression, that it took some time to effect the election, and that the apostles entrusted the election entirely to the congregation. They, too, were the ones to be satisfied. After the election had been held, these seven were certified as the congregation’s choice.
Luke continues with a plural participle and a verb, but evidently not the congregation but the apostles laid their hands on the seven and installed them in their office. The word “apostles” is not written because Luke has just mentioned them. The Lord’s blessing was invoked upon the elected men, and the hands were laid on them in this Old Testament symbolical act, which transferred the office with its duties and privileges and pictured the bestowal of the divine blessings that were necessary for this important work. Compare Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9. This rite was freely adopted by the early church; we read of it in 13:3 in connection with missionaries, and in 1 Tim. 4:4; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6 in connection with elders. We still use it in connection with confirmation and ordination. It was always symbolic and never charismatic.
The entire account shows that these seven men received only the office of deacons, their duty being to care for the poor and the needy as almoners. The preaching and the work of the Word remained wholly in the hands of the apostles (v. 4). The idea, often voiced, that after Pentecost the believers as such preached is without support in Luke’s account. So also the idea that, because Stephen argued with the Jews in their synagogues, and Philip became an evangelist, their diaconate included public preaching and teaching, and their installation was an ordination, goes beyond the facts as Luke reports them. These seven were in no sense presbyters of the Jerusalem congregation; they were not elected for that purpose. What is later reported about Stephen and about Philip has nothing to do with their official duties in the congregation.
These activities were the result of gifts and of opportunities that extend beyond their special office. The offices that came into being in the apostolic church were not fluid but well defined.
Acts 6:7
7And the Word of God continued to grow; and the number of the disciples went on multiplying exceedingly; also a great multitude of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.
Luke inserts this little account of the progress made in Jerusalem in order to show that neither the attack of the Sanhedrin nor the defect that had developed in the congregation in any way checked its growth. Compare 2:41; 4:4; 5:14, and now 6:7. The imperfect tenses describe and at the same time show steady continuation. “Continued to grow” speaks of the Word of God as a living thing; and it, indeed, grows as it enters and fills more and more hearts. “Went on multiplying exceedingly” is not an exaggeration as the clause with τε proves which adds that “a great multitude of the priests” were won. These had held off the longest but were now coming in numbers. To speak about plebeian priests contradicts the fact that all the priests were on the same level who were divided into twenty-four courses, each taking its turn in the Temple and portioning out the different tasks. There were no ranks or grades among them. “Were becoming obedient to the faith” is an expression similar to the one found in 13:8; Rom. 1:5; 16:26.
We see no reason for not understanding πίστις in the objective sense, namely as that which faith holds, Christ, the gospel, salvation in Christ. To understand the word in the subjective sense, faith in the sense of the action of believing, raises unnecessary difficulties.
STEPHEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL
The Lord’s hand had restrained the enemy for a long time. Finally the awful blow fell that was to scatter the congregation far and wide. It fell suddenly and in a way that was altogether unexpected: one of the deacons was brought to trial.
Acts 6:8
8Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. But there arose some of those out of the synagogue called that of the Libertines and of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not strong enough to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by whom he was speaking.
Once again Luke draws attention to the spiritual qualifications of Stephen, he was “full of grace and power,” for Stephen is the first man in addition to the apostles to perform miracles, “great wonders and signs,” the two terms being combined as usual (see 2:19). “Many” could not be added, for Stephen’s career was cut short; but “great” is added in order to indicate that Stephen’s miracles were of the same quality as those of the apostles.
In v. 3 and v. 5 note “wisdom, faith, and the Holy Spirit,” two personal effects and their divine source. Now “grace and power” are added. Both are direct gifts of a different kind that are plainly charismatic in their nature and enable their possessor to work miracles. This is not χάρις in the sense of pardoning grace, for that Stephen had when he first came to faith, but the special favor Dei that was connected with the δύναμις or power bestowed on him at this time as something exceptional and not granted to the other deacons: the ability to perform miracles. In other words, the Lord singled out Stephen (grace) as his instrument through whom he wrought miracles (power) when and where the Lord desired (compare 3:4). The congregation had made him a deacon, the Lord made something far greater out of him.
As stated in connection with v. 6, the latter had nothing to do with his work as a deacon. We add that Luke does not say a word about Stephen’s being a preacher or a teacher. He had neither a mediate nor an immediate call to that work.
Acts 6:9
9From Luke’s account we gather that Stephen was assailed by a number of Hellenistic Jews because his wonders and signs drew especial attention to him. Why they did not attack one or the other of the apostles but selected Stephen is not indicated. Luke states only the fact. The usual view is that Stephen made bold to invade the synagogues of these Jews and thus forced disputes regarding Jesus as the Messiah. The opposite is true. These Jews arose against Stephen and forced a dispute upon him, not in a synagogue of theirs, but in such a place where they were able to meet Stephen, probably in the court of the Temple or somewhere on the street. Stephen was a Hellenist as were his attackers, and this may have caused them to single him out although Luke does not say this.
We must note that τινεςτῶνἐκ … καὶτῶνἀπό indicates two general groups, and that “synagogue,” although it is often used as a designation for a building, must here have its original meaning: “gathering, congregation, mob.” The word is applied only to the first group; the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians formed a congregation, not so “those from Cilicia and Asia”—at least Luke does not say so. The fact that Luke does not refer to a building appears also from the circumstance that no synagogue would be called by a name that included three nationalities; on the other hand, no grammarian has supplied “synagogue” with either the first three nationalities alone or with all five. How R., W. P., can say that Luke may have referred to five synagogue buildings, is rather difficult to understand. By using ἀπό Luke excludes a reference to even two synagogues. The Talmud speaks of 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, but if there had been that many or even a thousand, this would not affect what Luke here states.
Luke uses the aorist: “there rose up some” in dispute. This aorist cannot be constative as speaking of a series of acts. It follows an imperfect and is in turn followed by an imperfect, and, therefore, if a series of disputes were implied, we should have an imperfect and not an aorist between imperfects. Moreover, the subject of this aorist is “some,” a group made up of five nationalities. These arose in dispute. This does not mean that now the Libertines arose, now the Cyrenians, and so forth, today in this synagogue, tomorrow in that?
Some commentators draw on their imagination and ask: “Was not Saul from Cilicia, would he not be in the synagogue of the Cilicians, and would not this brilliant pupil of Gamaliel’s be the first one to oppose Stephen when he invaded this synagogue?” R., W. P., regards this story as “practically certain.” As to Luke, he reports that “some” who were possibly chosen for this purpose from two groups (the one composed of three, the other of two nationalities), all of them Hellenists, on one occasion engaged Stephen in a decisive dispute.
The Libertines were freedmen and their descendants, the Latin libertini. This term ignores the earlier distinction between liberti as a designation for freedmen and libertini as a designation for their descendants. This term is geographical like the rest, and to hear it mentioned was to think of Rome, whither two generations before, in 61 B. C., Pompey had taken many hundreds of captive Jews who were then sold as slaves. Numbers of them and of their descendants gained their liberty and were considered Romans. They were rapidly Hellenized.
Zahn draws attention to the inscriptions on tombs and to the fact that only one of the seven synagogues found in Rome is called that of the Hebrews. The circumstance that numbers of these freedmen migrated to Jerusalem is most natural, for, like other Jews of the diaspora, those listed here and in 2:9–11, they felt drawn to their great sanctuary in the Holy City. It is entirely probable that some of the libertini were among the “Romans” mentioned in 2:10, even some who refused to believe at that time and now withstood Stephen. On the Cyrenians see 2:10. The Alexandrians were from Alexandria in Northern Egypt, two of whose five divisions were inhabited by Jews. Alexandria was the main seat of Hellenistic Jewish learning.
Cilicia is a province in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor, while Asia (here without the article) is the province by this name, whose capital was Ephesus. All these Hellenistic Jews, like Stephen himself, had their present permanent homes in Jerusalem.
Acts 6:10
10Luke follows with imperfects that are descriptive hut not ingressive (R., W. P.). They are open tenses and imply the definite action expressed by the following aorists. These Hellenists were many against one, but despite their number they had not the strength (imperfect) to resist successfully (aorist infinitive) “the wisdom” (see v. 3) and the Holy Spirit granting that wisdom, by whom Stephen kept speaking in this debate. “By whom” = by whose assistance. Luke pictures the situation.
Acts 6:11
11Now the result that followed. Then they suborned men, (these) stating, We have heard him uttering blasphemous utterances against Moses and God. And they stirred up both the people and the elders and the scribes; and having come upon him, they snatched him and brought him to the Sanhedrin, besides they set up false witnesses, (these) saying: This man does not cease uttering utterances against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him saying, This Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this place and will change the customs which Moses gave to us.
When fair means fail, unbelief is prone to resort to foul means, thereby condemning itself. The narrative proceeds by using aorists, all of which report the outcome of the action described in v. 10. “They suborned men,” etc., literally, “threw under,” is the regular term for securing perjured witnesses. There is no reason why these “men” could not have been selected from the disputants named in v. 10. It is also plain that these men were to serve as witnesses at the trial to which these opponents of Stephen hoped to bring him—a plan which succeeded. These very men were the ones put forward as the “false witnesses” referred to in v. 13; the idea that they were not the same men lacks support.
Αέγοντας introduces What these men are to say, namely to charge Stephen with “blaphemous utterances against Moses and God.” This greatest Old Testament prophet and mediator of the covenant is combined with God as the object of one preposition which practically makes “Moses and God” one concept; for whatever would be uttered against Moses would eo ipso be spoken also against God. What these utterances were to be we hear presently; only their general character is stated in advance.
Acts 6:12
12With this devilish plan in mind, the Hellenists begin operations. They inaugurate a violent agitation throughout the city and soon succeed in stirring up “both the people and the elders and the scribes,” τε—καί, “elders and scribes,” being a unit and meaning as much as Sanhedrists. Since so many Hellenists started on a definite campaign simultaneously, it is little wonder that a great agitation resulted. It certainly lasted more than a day or two. The idea of blasphemy against Moses and God stirred up the most violent passions in almost any Jew. The fact that such a charge was prefered from many quarters certainly made it appear to be true. The Sanhedrists, no doubt, responded most readily although it was not an apostle that was being accused; they must have become more alarmed than ever because so many priests accepted Jesus (v. 7).
Luke simply relates the facts in the briefest fashion. With τε he closely connects the arrest with the successful agitation. This means that, as soon as preparation was well under way, Stephen was to be apprehended and put to trial. This, too, succeeded. How and where his foes captured him is immaterial to Luke. Perhaps it was in his own home or when, upon some occasion, he ventured into the street that they accosted him, caught him, and led him away to the Sanhedrin. The verbs make one think of a wild animal leaping on its innocent prey, burying its fangs in the flesh, and carrying it off.
One of the remarkable features of this story is the circumstance that these vicious and bloodthirsty Jews do not plan simply to capture and to kill Stephen without further ceremony. No; they plan on a trial, prepare witnesses, then secure Stephen and place him before the high court. They just will have the legal machinery! It was so in the case of Jesus. Although their motives were insincere and all the means criminal, this show of legal right seems in some way to hush their consciences.
Acts 6:13
13We have no reason to think that the Sanhedrin was assembled and waiting when Stephen was brought in. All that Luke wishes to convey to us is the fact that Stephen was placed before this high court to be tried for the worst crime known in its criminal code. How long a time was required to assemble the Sanhedrin is an immaterial detail. So also the proceedings previous to the calling of the witnesses. We have heard the indictment in v. 11; Luke needs to report only its substantiation by means of testimony. The accusers (v. 9) have their witnesses ready.
Luke at once calls them “lying” or “false” witnesses and by the use of that expression intends to indicate that they consciously testified falsely and thus perjured themselves. The proof is furnished in extenso in Stephen’s own address which shows what he did say in his dispute (v. 9) and at any and all other times.
First the preamble: “This man does not cease uttering utterances against this holy place and the law.” Not once or twice but without changing his utterances he assails “this holy place and the law.” The view that by “this holy place” the witnesses referred, not to the Temple, but to the city of Jerusalem with its Temple, is unsatisfactory since it cannot be shown that this designation was ever so used. If a holiness of the city might be spoken of, this emanated only from the Temple; and any utterance against the city would be blasphemous only because it was really spoken against the Temple. As far as destruction is concerned, the Temple would be the last structure to be destroyed; its destruction would thus involve that of the city. Far more important is the combination of “this holy place” with “the law” which refers to Mosaic regulations that centered in the Temple (not in the city save as the Temple in that city is referred to). Of necessity the two belong together, for any derogatory utterances against either would involve the other. God (v. 11) was behind both.
Acts 6:14
14The actual testimony is introduced with γάρ: “We have heard him declaring, ‘This Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this place and will change the customs which Moses gave us.’” This sentence purports to be a direct and verbatim quotation from Stephen’s own lips; but in reality it is only a restatement of what these witnesses claimed Stephen had said. The case is quite analogous to that of Jesus who was alleged to have said about the same thing (John 2:19–22; Matt. 26:61; 27:40). In both cases no effort is made to understand what the person charged actually said, and what his words really mean, but only to use his words against him by making him say or imply what he never actually said or really implied. Luther makes the application: “We ought on this account raise no high complaint against such unfair accusations. The devil knows no other way than to lie and pervert and interpret in the worst fashion what has been said well and properly. This we must look for and must wait until God comes and proves whether they have spoken truth or whether they have lied. In the meanwhile we must content ourselves that, together with beloved Stephen, we have the testimony of our conscience that we are not trying to blaspheme or teach people wrongly and mislead them.”
After one fashion or another commentators endeavor to determine exactly wherein the lie of these false witnesses consisted, and some of them pare down the lie to very moderate proportions. Fortunately, we have Stephen’s own reply. He takes up these charges in detail and first refutes the charge that he blasphemed God; secondly, that he blasphemed Moses and the law; thirdly, that he blasphemed the Temple. In fact, he proves that he does the very opposite, and that in the true sense of God’s own Word, that Word which these Jews constantly resisted and whose prophets they killed. Nor was Stephen, as little as Jesus, condemned on the basis of this false testimony but because he spoke the truth, especially the truth about his own accusers and judges.
Acts 6:15
15After the depositions of the perjured witnesses had been received, all eyes turned upon Stephen. And all those sitting in the Sanhedrin gazing earnestly on him, saw his countenance as an angel’s countenance.
What made the entire Sanhedrin gaze thus at Stephen? Was this only a look of interest which is apt to be manifested when a defendant reaches the dramatic moment for his own defense? No; it was what these Sanhedrists saw: Stephen’s face like an angel’s face. Aorist participle and aorist verb express simultaneous action. Did Luke mean only that “with beaming countenance” and “unafraid” Stephen “enthusiastically” entered on his defense? Then Luke, the great historian, used extravagant, not to say false, language. Even great joy and exalted expressions on a man’s face would not make a body of men think they were seeing something “like an angel’s face.”
We must recall the promise of Jesus given to the disciples that at their trials before tribunals the Holy Spirit would inspire them (Matt. 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11–13; Luke 12:11; 21:14, 15). This was Stephen’s supreme hour. That Spirit now filled him to such an extent that his countenance shone with supernatural radiance, light, and power, which were comparable only to those that appear on an angel’s countenance. The Sanhedrists gazed in astonishment. They were struck by this phenomenon—struck but not moved. They who were proof against the angelic truth Stephen uttered would certainly not be moved by his angelic face.
They had seen other phenomena, for instance, the restored cripple (4:14) and the miracles of Jesus, and had become more obdurate than ever. The appearance of Stephen’s face had a purpose with reference to the Sanhedrin and all who witnessed the trial. A hush fell upon them; they were gripped by that light on Stephen’s face until his address reached its climax. How did Luke know all this about Stephen? There were witnesses enough, and one especially, Luke’s dearest friend Paul.
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.