Acts 6

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 6 THE SEVEN CHOSEN Acts 6:1-7 1 Now in these days, when the number of the disciples—Luke, as a faithful historian, now narrates further development of the church; a gradual unfolding of gospel principles is made in the preaching of the gospel, and a gradual development in the organi¬zation of the church. The church was established on Pentecost; the historian now reaches a point where the church is four or five years old. The increase in the number of disciples brought about a com¬plication of affairs, and gave an opportunity for the apostles to ar¬range in a more systematic order for the work and discipline of the large and growing number of disciples. “ Now in these days” is a phrase of indefinite time; it is generally understood that the ascen¬sion took place about A.D. 30; some think that it was in A.D. 29 and others in A.D. 33; the date is immaterial. The first six chap¬ters of Acts are generally supposed to cover a history of four or five years; hence, at this time the church would be that old. This was a period of great prosperity, as the number of disciples increased daily. “ A murmuring” or “ muttering” or complaining arose among “ the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews.” “ Grecian Jews” were “ Hellenists,” or Jews who were born and reared in another coun¬try than Palestine; “ Hebrews” were the Jews who were of pure Jewish blood and spoke the Hebrew language. Paul said that he was “ a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5), which meant that he was of pure Hebrew blood and that he spoke the Hebrew lan¬guage.

The cause of this complaint was because the widows among “ the Grecian Jews” were “ neglected,” or “ overlooked,” in “ the daily ministration.” This “ murmuring” or whispering of discon¬tent is a sin frequently condemned in the New Testament. (Philippians 2:14; 1 Peter 4:9.) This complaint seems to have been against the apostles, as they had charge of the funds that had been contrib¬uted. (Acts 4:35 Acts 4:37 Acts 5:2.) “ Daily ministration” shows that there was a daily distribution of things which were needed. This sin of neglect is the second sin that is recorded against any mem¬ber of the church. 2 And the twelve called the multitude—Here we have “ the twelve” apostles mentioned, showing that for these few years of the church all twelve of the apostles were still at Jerusalem. This shows that Matthias was regarded as one of the apostles, for it would take him to complete the list of “ the twelve.” (Acts 1:26.) The number of disciples here is spoken of as “ the multitude of the disciples.” The apostles stated that it was not best, or satisfactory, for them to give their time to ministering to tables, “ serve tables.” They had a higher and more important work to do— preaching the word. In order for them to “ serve tables” they would necessarily have to “ forsake the word of God” in part at least. “ Tables,” as used here, does not mean money tables as in John 2:15, but rather the tables used in the common daily distribution of the food. “ Ministration” is from the Greek “ diakonia,” and means the same as “ to serve.” The Greek word “ diakonia,” or “ diakonos,” as used here, has the same meaning as used in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13; it is usually translated “ deacon.” There are three English words in our version by which “ diakonos” is translated; they are “ minister,” “ servant,” and “ deacon.” Sometimes it is translated “ bond servant” or “ bondman” ; it is frequently used to designate a “ minister of the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Ephesians 3:7.) The word “ deacon” is almost a transcription of “ diakonos.” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-12.) It is also applied to Phoebe. (Romans 16:1.) 3 Look ye out therefore, brethren,—The term “ look ye out” means to “ look at” in order to select, to “ seek out” as persons for office. The entire multitude of disciples was instructed to do this. They were to select “ from among” themselves “ seven men.” There is no significance in the number “ seven” except that it is a sacred number and usually implies completeness. This number was con¬sidered sufficient for the work that they were to do. The qualifica¬tions are specified; they were to be “ men of good report,” “ full of the Spirit,” and men “ of wisdom” ; these “ we” may appoint over this business. The first qualification “ of good report” is important ; it is mentioned in Acts 10:22 Acts 16:2; 1 Timothy 5:10.

The second qualification was that they were to be “ full of the Spirit” ; this phrase is frequently used in regard to spiritual gifts and miraculous powers. (Acts 2:4 Acts 4:8.) Furthermore, they were to be men “ of wisdom,” which means that they were to have practical sagacity, good sense, and sound judgment. “ Whom we may ap¬point” has received much discussion. Some think that the “ we” has reference only to the apostles; others think that it includes the entire church and apostles; since the apostles are directing in this, it seems clear that it includes only the apostles. 4 But we will continue stedfastly in prayer,—“ We” here designates the same “ we” in the preceding verse; it is clear that it includes the apostles. The apostles would “ continue stedfastly” ; that is, would adhere to that which they had been doing. (Romans 12:12; Colossians 4:2.) The apostles had been spending much time in prayer; they were determined to continue “ in prayer” ; this does not merely mean private prayer, but here in the sense of public worship. (Acts 16:13.) If the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, needed to continue “ stedfastly in prayer,” how much more do we need to pray! “ The ministry of the word,” in which they were to steadfastly continue, means serving as preaching and teaching the word. Here, again, we have the word “ diakonia,” as used in verse 1, but here it has reference to preaching as the spe¬cial ministry with which the apostles were concerned. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude:—The suggestion made by the apostles met with the hearty approval of “ the whole multitude/’ There was no dissent in the meeting; they unanimously concurred in the direction given by the apostles, and proceeded according to their direction. They chose Stephen, Phil¬ip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus. All these names are from the Greek language, and indicate the gener¬osity of the Hebrew portion of the multitude in putting this matter in the hands of “ the Grecian Jews” from whom the complaint had come. “ Stephen” is mentioned first as he was the most conspicu¬ous of the group; “ Philip” is the next one mentioned. We have a record of Stephen and also of Philip in the later history of the church; but we do not have any mention of the others after their appointment. Philip is to be distinguished from Philip the apostle. This Philip is “ Philip the evangelist.” (Acts 21:8.) Some of Philip’ s labors in Samaria and elsewhere are mentioned in the Acts; Stephen was the first martyr; and some think that Nicolaus is mentioned in Revelation 2:6-15.

The other four names are not re¬ferred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Some have contended that the Greek names do not prove that these were all from the “ Grecian Jews” ; they think that three of the seven were Hebrews, three Grecians, and one a proselyte. 6 whom they set before the apostles:—After the selection of these seven men who were qualified as mentioned in verse 3, they were placed before the apostles who prayed and “ laid their hands upon them.” Much discussion has been had as to the form of “ or¬daining” these men. The imposition of hands was a practice of long standing among the Jews. Jacob laid hands on the sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:13-14); it is recorded also that Moses laid hands on Joshua (Deuteronomy 34:9); the Levites were set apart to the service of the tabernacle by the imposition of hands (Numbers 8:10); hands were laid on the scapegoat to impart to it the sins to be carried away (Leviticus 16:21). The laying on of hands was a sym¬bol of the impartation of the gifts and graces which were needed to qualify them for their new duties; this was accompanied with prayer that God would bestow the necessary gifts upon them. Some have thought that this is the beginning of the officers in the church known as “ deacons” ; it may be, but these men are not called deacons. We do not know whether they were appointed in this case of emergency, and ceased when the supplies were ex¬hausted, or when the church was scattered abroad. (Acts 8:1.) It is claimed that they did the work of “ deacons,” and that their work is described by the same Greek word that is used for “ dea¬cons” ; this may be true, but the fact remains that they are no¬where in the New Testament called “ deacons.” 7 And the word of God increased;—“ Increased,” as used here, is from “ euxanen,” which means “ kept on growing all the more” because the apostles were now relieved from the daily min¬istration of the food. The number of disciples “ multiplied” as the result of the increased activities of the apostles in preaching the word. “ Multiplied” is from the original “ eplethuneto,” which means that the preaching of the apostles and the multiplication of the number of disciples kept pace with each other. “ A great com¬pany of the priests were obedient to the faith.” The priests were usually Sadducees; it was a sad day for Annas and Caiaphas and all the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) when such a large num¬ber of priests became obedient to the faith. Three things are men¬tioned here to show the progress of the church: “ the word of God increased,” “ the number of the disciples multiplied,” and “ a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” “ Obedient to the faith” is equivalent to obeying the gospel; “ faith” here means “ faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the gospel.” GOSPEL IN JUDEA AND SAMARIAAct_6:8 to Acts 8:25 STEPHEN AND TRIEDAct_6:8-15 8 And Stephen, full of grace and power,—Stephen was de¬scribed as “ a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” when he was selected; here he is described as being “ full of grace and power.” “ Grace” is used here in the sense of favor with God; “ power” does not merely mean strength and fortitude, but some unusual power, enabling him to be the instrument of doing great wonders or miracles among the people. It is thought that Stephen was a “ Grecian Jew,” who had accepted Christ; he worked “ great wonders and signs among the people.” 9 But there arose certain of them—This verse has confused many commentators, and given them no little trouble. “ The syna¬gogue of the Libertines” were the Jews who were one time slaves, but had been given their liberty. Some think that they were merely Jews of Rome, who had been taken there as captives by Pompey. “ Libertines” comes from the Latin which means “ freed¬man,” or “ the son of a freedman.” It is said that there were two hundred eighty synagogues in Jerusalem; these places of worship and study were in all the cities of later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem—“ Libertines,” “ Cyrenians,” “ Alexandrians,” “ Cilicia,” and “ Asia.” There were probably enough “ Hellenists” in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. Cyrene was in Africa, about halfway between Carthage and Alexandria; it contained a large number of Jews, who constituted one-fourth of its entire population. (Mark 15:21; Acts 13:1.) Alexandria was the capital of Egypt, and was founded by Alexander the Great. In no city save Jerusalem were there so many Jews, nor had they so much power anywhere out of Palestine; the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made at Alexandria for Jews there. Cilicia was at the southeast corner of what is now called Asia Minor; it contained a large number of Jews; Asia in the New Testament always means the northwest corner of Asia Minor, which had Ephesus for its capital. Stephen engaged all of these syna¬gogues in controversy about Christ. 10 And they were not able to withstand the wisdom—Stephen was “ full of grace and power" and representatives of these synagogues were unable to meet his arguments. He spoke with such fearlessness, clearness of argument, understanding of the prophecy, and power of the Spirit that his speech was irresistible. 11 Then they suborned men, who said,—“ Suborned” is from “ hupoballo,” which originally meant “ to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one’ s control by suggestion or money.” Here it means that they put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. These men for money or for some wicked motive bore wit¬ness that they had heard Stephen “ speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” They brought the same accusa¬tion against Christ. (Matthew 26:65; Mark 2:7.) Punishment for blasphemy against God was death by stoning. (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:6-10.) They charged Stephen with blaspheming Moses, and concluded their charge that he had blasphemed God. 12-13 And they stirred up the people,—The original, “ sunek- inesan,” means they shook the people together like an earthquake. The wrangling Libertines and the others of verse 9 were the leaders of this mob against Stephen; with the testimony of these false witnesses they “ stirred up” the people; the elders and the scribes rushed upon Stephen and brought him into the council. After Stephen was brought into the presence of the council, again they “ set up false witnesses” who testified that “ this man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law.” They enlarged upon the testimony that was first borne; this time they add that Stephen not only blasphemed Moses and God, but that he spoke “ words against this holy place,” meaning Jerusalem, or the temple. They made wild charges against Stephen that he had spoken against the law and the temple; it is supposed that they had reference to what Stephen had spoken in their synagogues. 14 for we have heard him say,—Probably Stephen had warned the people that if they persisted in their opposition to Jesus their city and temple would be destroyed. Jesus himself had made declarations of the same import. (Matthew 26:61; Luke 19:41-44.) They perverted what Jesus had said, and now they put a wrong construction on what Stephen says. Jesus had predicted the destruction of the temple, but it was to be done by the Gentiles. The enemies of Stephen were unable to meet his arguments, and they resorted to violent means; this was a confession that they could not withstand his arguments. Their charges were false, and they proceeded upon false accusations. 15 And all that sat in the council,—Probably Saul of Tarsus sat in this council with others and saw the face of Stephen shine as though “ it had been the face of an angel.” His face was lighted up with divine radiance. The members of the council literally gazed upon him as if they had seen “ the face of an angel.” Even his ene¬mies saw his face as if it were the face of an angel, but they were too wicked to turn from their evil course. The face of Moses shone in a similar way when he came down from the mountain. (Exodus 34:30; 2 Corinthians 3:7.) We do not know where Peter and John were at this time; it seems that Stephen stood alone before the Sanhedrin as did Jesus; however, he was not alone, for he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (Acts 7:56.) There was lit¬tle that Peter and John could do at this time; Gamaliel did not in¬terpose this time, for the Pharisees were behind the charges against Stephen.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 6Acts 6:1. From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences. (1) “Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur.

The “ daily ministration” is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made “ to every one according as he had need.” That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants. Acts 6:2-4. This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles.

But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay. When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly. (2) “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word.” The alternative with the apostles was to “ leave,” in some degree, “ the word of God,” and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and “ continue in prayer and the ministry of the word” as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole “ multitude of the disciples” should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of “ good repute;” not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren. They must also be men who were “ full of the Holy Spirit.” Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears “ doing great wonders and miracles among the people,” seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, “ full of the Holy Spirit,” generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was “ full of the Spirit” in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day. The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in the third chapter of First Timothy. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (verse 1) and their service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (verse 2) the same which expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10-13. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was “to serve tables,” diakonein trapezais; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the “ Commentary on Acts,” xxi. 8. Acts 6:5-6. The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it, (5) “And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them.” It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men. All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors. Of Nicolas, it is said that he was “ a proselyte of Antioch,” which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised. Stephen is specially described as “ a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit,” not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men “ full of the Holy Spirit.” But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven. The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to “look out” the men, “ whom,” say the apostles, “ we may appoint over this business.” The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office. The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches. Acts 6:7. The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) “And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith.” This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem. The expression used concerning these priests, that they became “ obedient to the faith,” is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was “ for obedience to the faith among all nations.” Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who “obey not the gospel,” whatever may be their faith, will be “ destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power.” There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, “ The word of God increased,” and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: “ There was a precious season of grace;” “ The Lord was present in his saving power;” “ A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence. Acts 6:8. We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) “Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was “ full of faith.” This accords with the fact already observed, (3:16,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith. Acts 6:9-10. The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon’s Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) “Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.”The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus. The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and “ brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel.” The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel— the great teacher of the Pharisees— the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, “ teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded.” This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all. This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that “ they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.” By the “ spirit by which he spoke,” I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked. In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him. Acts 6:11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) “Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) “And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” This is the first time that “ the people” are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the “ fear of the people” had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor. The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy “ against Moses and God,” otherwise expressed, “ against this holy place, and the law.” The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: “ We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent. Acts 6:15. As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors— who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his words— must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) “And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel.” There is no need to suppose anything supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been their agitation! The trial proceeds:

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Six IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To note how the church in Jerusalem handled their internal problems

2. To examine the process of selecting and appointing those who serve in the Lord’s church

3. To evaluate the charges that were brought against Stephen

SUMMARY As the disciples in Jerusalem multiplied in number, it is not surprising to read of problems increasing as well. This chapter describes problems from within and without the congregation.

Hellenists (Jewish Christians who adopted Grecian culture) complained that the Hebrews (Jewish Christians who sought to preserve Jewish culture) neglected their widows in the daily distribution (cf. Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:34-35). The apostles, desiring not to be distracted from their own work, summon the disciples and charge them to select seven men whom the apostles might appoint to take care of this responsibility. Seven are selected by the people and appointed by the apostles through prayer and the laying on of hands. With the problem solved, the word of God spread and the number of disciples multiplied greatly, including the obedience of many priests (Acts 6:1-6).

Stephen, one of the seven, began doing many wonders and signs. Opposition arose from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen who disputed with Stephen. Unable to resist the Spirit and the wisdom of which he spoke, they resorted to false witnesses to stir up the people, elders, and scribes. Brought before the council, Stephen was charged with blasphemy against the temple and the law of Moses. The chapter ends with the council looking at Stephen, seeing his face as the face of an angel (Acts 6:7-15).

OUTLINE I. THE OF THE SEVEN (Acts 6:1-7) A. THE PROBLEM (Acts 6:1)1. As the church grew, there arose a complaint 2. The Hellenists were complaining against the Hebrews 3. The Hellenistic widows were being neglected during the daily distribution

B. THE (Acts 6:3-6)1. The twelve apostles summon the multitude of disciples a. It was not good that the apostles leave the word of God to serve tables b. The congregation should select seven men that the apostles might appoint

1. Of good reputation
2. Full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom c. So the apostles might give themselves to prayer and the word of God

2. The multitude is pleased, and select seven men a. Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit b. Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch
3. The seven men are appointed by the apostles a. Having prayed b. Laying hands on them

C. THE RESULT (Acts 6:7)1. The word of God spread, the number of the disciples multiplied 2. Many of the priests were obedient to the faith

II. THE CHARGES AGAINST STEPHEN (Acts 6:8-15) A. HIS (Acts 6:8-10)1. Full of faith and power, he did great wonders and signs among the people 2. Disputed with some from the Synagogue of the Freedmen a. Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia b. Who were unable to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke

B. THE (Acts 6:11-14)1. They secretly induced men to charge him with blasphemy against Moses and God 2. They stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes a. To come and seize him b. To bring him to the (Sanhedrin) council 3. They set up false witnesses who charged Stephen with blasphemy against: a. The holy place (temple): “We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place” b. Against the law (of Moses) “…and change the customs which Moses delivered to us”

C. HIS (Acts 6:15)1. All who sat in the council looked steadfastly at him 2. They saw his face as the face of an angel

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The selection of the seven (Acts 6:1-7)

• The charges against Stephen (Acts 6:8-15)

2. As the church in Jerusalem grew in number, who raised a complaint? Why? (Acts 6:1)- The Hellenists against the Hebrews

• The Hellenistic widows were being neglected in the daily distribution

3. When the apostles summoned the disciples, what did they first say to them? (Acts 6:2)- “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables”

4. What proposal did the apostles offer? (Acts 6:3)- For the congregation to select seven whom the apostles could appoint over this business

5. What qualifications did the apostles lay down for the selection of the seven? (Acts 6:3)- Men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom

6. What would this enable the apostles to do? (Acts 6:4)- Give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word

7. What were the names of the seven men who were selected? What is unique about their names? (Acts 6:5)- Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicholas

• They are all Grecian (Hellenistic) names

8. How did the apostles appoint those whom the congregation selected? (Acts 6:6)- Through prayer and the laying on of hands

9. As the word of spread, what two things occurred? (Acts 6:7)- The number of the disciples multiplied greatly

• A great many of the priests were obedient to the faith

10. What did Stephen, one of the seven, do among the people? (Acts 6:8)- Great signs and wonders

11. Who began to dispute with Stephen? (Acts 6:9)- Some from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, others from Cilicia and Asia)

12. What were they unable to do? (Acts 6:10)- Resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spoke

13. What did they secretly induce men to say? (Acts 6:11)- “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God”

14. What did they stir up the people, elders, and scribes to do? (Acts 6:12)- To seize Stephen and bring him to the council

15. What did they set up false witnesses to say? (Acts 6:13-14)- “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law”

• “We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us”

16. As those in the council looked at Stephen, what did they see? (Acts 6:15)- His face as the face of an angel

Verse 1 This very short chapter narrates the preliminaries of Stephen’s martyrdom, noting that it occurred following a period of great growth and prosperity for the new faith (Acts 6:1), that Stephen’s rise to prominence was a result of his appointment as one of the seven chosen to administer the distribution of food to the needy, an appointment brought about by complaints of neglecting the Grecian widows (Acts 6:2-7), and that his popularity, ability in debate, and fearless proclamation of the truth resulted in a Pharisaical plot against him, leading to his arrest (Acts 6:8-15). Many things of very great significance come to view in this little chapter: there was the first instance of the laying on of the hands of the apostles; there appeared the first violent opposition of the Pharisees; there occurred the first expansion of the church’s organization beyond that of the governing apostles; there was a second threat to the unity of the disciples, deriving from the allegations of neglect of a certain class receiving charity; and there was the exceedingly significant record of “a great company of the priests” accepting the faith in Jesus Christ. Now in these days when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1) In these days … indicates a considerable time-lapse after the establishment of the church in A.D. 30, probably a period of six or eight years. Murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews … Both classes of these “Jews” were Christians, but there was a language barrier. The Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic, and those of the Diaspora spoke Greek; many of the latter were living in Jerusalem at that time but were natives of the provinces. “In the Jewish world as a whole there was some tension, and this survived between the two groups,"[1] even after they became Christians. Murmuring … Most scholars assume that there was justification for this action, basing their opinion upon the assumption that the Grecian widows were actually “neglected.” However, it is not clear from this verse that Luke intended any admission to that effect; but neither is it denied. It is this word “murmuring” which casts some doubt on the extent of that “neglect,” for “murmuring” almost invariably carries with it an imputation of guilt in the persons doing the murmuring; and it rarely implies any guilt in those murmured against. “How long shall I bear with this evil generation which murmur against me?” (Numbers 14:27). As Spurgeon said of the murmuring of Israel in the wilderness: The tendency of human nature is to murmur, complain, find fault, a very easy thing to do, the very word “murmur” being made of two infantile sounds - MUR MUR! There is no sense in it, no wit in it, no thought in it, being the cry rather of a brute than of a man, just a double groan![2]The vice of murmuring is specifically condemned in Philippians 2:14,1 Corinthians 10:10; and this student of God’s word refuses to see in the incident before us any justification whatever for the murmuring that took place regarding the daily distribution of food to the needy. In the very nature of such distributions, it was inevitable that some should receive less, others more, and that almost any person desiring to find fault could easily have “discovered” some basis for alleging it. Significantly, the apostles spoke not a word of blame regarding either those who murmured or those who had done the distributing. They simply changed the administration of the charities with a view to eliminating all further excuses for any murmuring. Their Widows … As McGarvey noted: The fact that this distribution was made daily, and that the widows were the principal recipients, confirms our former conclusion that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy.[3]Elam made a deduction based upon this episode, as follows: There may be only two classes in the church, namely, the givers and the receivers. Each one belongs to one of these classes. If one is unable to give, that one is in the class of receivers and needs to be given to.[4][1] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 128. [2] Charles H. Spurgeon, Sermons (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company), Vol. IX, p. 389. [3] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 103. [4] E. A. Elam, Elam’s Notes on Bible School Lessons (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1931), p. 191. Verse 2 And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God and serve tables.The twelve … “shows that Matthias was one of the apostles, for it would take him to complete the list of the twelve."[5]It is not fit that we should … Many commentators read this as if it said, “It is not fit that we shouldCONTINUE to serve tables,” assuming that until this incident the twelve had personally distributed the food to the needy; but such is not stated here, nor is it likely that the twelve had been doing such work, except perhaps, occasionally, volunteers, in all probability, having done the most of it. Serve tables … The word “serve” has the meaning of “minister to,” and is rendered from the Greek word [@diakonia], a derivative from [@diakonos], the latter term being rendered “by three English words in our version: ; SERVANT, and DEACON."[6] It is upon this rather precarious basis that the men here appointed are often called “deacons.” Significantly, the record here does not so name them, nor is there very much similarity between their status and that of the deacons Paul commanded Timothy to appoint. The men here were not assistants to elders of the church, but to the Twelve; and, furthermore, they were endowed by a laying on of the hands of the apostles. Perhaps the best name for them is the Seven, as Luke himself called them (Acts 21:8). [5] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953, p. 95. [6] Ibid. Verse 3 Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.The traditional deductions from this episode, namely, (1) that the men here appointed were installed in the office of deacon, and (2) that the work of deacons is restricted to the church’s “business” affairs, are by no means necessary. McGarvey was sure that “The deacon’s office was here first created and supplied with incumbents”;[7] and “That no ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of church officers."[8] However, the Seven were not “elected” at all; they were “appointed” by the apostles. Therefore, to the extent of this episode’s application to “church officers,” it is the right of nominating elders and deacons which is vested in the congregation, rather than the right of election or appointment of such officers. Despite this, the question is somewhat academic, because neither apostles nor elders can rule any congregation without taking into account the considered judgment of its membership. [7] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 107. [8] Ibid., p. 104. Verse 4 But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.Continue stedfastly … What the apostles here proposed was to “continue” as they had already been doing, namely, devoting their total resources to the propagation of the truth. This verse denies the supposition that, until this time, the apostles had been doing all of the distributing of food to the needy. See under Acts 6:2. The ministry of the word … Nothing is any plainer in the New Testament than the priority of the word and doctrine of Christ over every other consideration, even that of taking care of the poor. Neither area of responsibility is to be neglected; but the first duty is that of ministering the word itself. Verse 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose 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 of Antioch.Stephen … is mentioned first, as Luke’s narrative was about to recount his martyrdom. The qualifications that he had as a man of faith and full of the Holy Spirit were not his alone but belonged to all of the group nominated by the multitude. Philip … Concerning this nominee, Johnson said: He was distinguished as “Philip the Evangelist.” He gave the gospel to Samaria, converted the eunuch, and afterward lived and labored at Caesarea (Acts 21:8).[9]Nicolaus … A great deal of interest attaches to this last named of the Seven. First, he is the only one designated a proselyte, and the only one whose native city is given, the latter fact calling forth this comment from Bruce: That the only member of the Seven to have his place of origin named should belong to Antioch - Syrian Antioch, of course, is a mark of Luke’s special interest in that city; and this helps to confirm the tradition that he himself was an Antiochene."[10]Two of the Ante-Nicene writers connected the name of Nicolaus with the heresy named in Revelation 2:6. Irenaeus wrote: The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolaus who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence … teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.[11]Of course, it is no greater wonder that one of the Seven should have proved to be unworthy than that one of the Twelve should have been a traitor. Nevertheless, serious doubt is cast upon Irenaeus’ charge of heresy against Nicolaus, it being far more likely that a group of sinners pretending to be his followers adopted his name in an effort to further their evil teaching, as appears in this comment from Victorinus who wrote the first known commentary on Revelation. In his comment on Revelation 2:6, he said: The Nicolaitanes were in that time false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicolaus, had made for themselves a heresy … etc.Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.">[12] Regarding the fact that all seven of this group had Greek names, the conclusions of scholars are contradictory. Some assume that all seven were members of the dissenting or complaining party.[13] Lange thought it probable that “some of the seven were Hebrews”[14] with Greek names; and Boles noted that some think that “three of the seven were Hebrews, three Grecians, and one a proselyte”![15] (Quite a political maneuver!) It is obvious that we simply do not know. [9] B. W. Johnson, Notes on the New Testament (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 439. [10] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 129. [11] Irenaeus, Against Heresies in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. I, p. 352. Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.">[12] Victorious, Commentary on Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346. [13] E. A. Elam, op. cit., p. 190. [14] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1866), p. 105. [15] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 97. Verse 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them.They laid their hands upon them … The Seven were already “full of the Holy Spirit” in the sense ordinary; and therefore something more is intended here. Luke himself connected the laying on of the apostles’ hands with the gift extraordinary of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18); and coupled with Luke’s statement a moment later that one of the Seven did “great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8), the teaching appears to be that the apostles here endowed the Seven with miraculous powers. To view the laying on of hands as a mere ceremony of ordination is incorrect. For more elaborate discussion of the laying on of hands, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2. Verse 7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.Increased … exceedingly … At a number of places in Acts, namely, here, Acts 9:30; Acts 12:24; Acts 16:5; Acts 19:20, and Acts 28:31, Luke paused to note the continued success of the gospel. C. H. Turner pointed out that Acts is thus cut into six panels covering, on an average, about five years each.[16]A great company of the priests believed … Only here is there such a declaration in the New Testament, and the importance of the truth revealed here is superlative.

First of all, here is the secret of all those episodes which took place in the homes of Pharisees, as given in Luke, there being no good reason to doubt that Luke interviewed many of those converted priests; and this student views this as by far the most likely and reasonable explanation of chapters 10-19 in Luke’s gospel. In the second place, the conversion of a vast number of Pharisees would account for the savage persecution of the church by that same party, which persecution Luke was in the act of narrating. The defection of many of their own group fired the hatred of the remnant against the gospel. The success of the gospel, however, in bringing many priests of the old order into the church was not an unmixed blessing. The presence of such a group would tend to meld the old and the new institutions, a melding that was contrary to God’s will; and, in this, one may read the necessity for the divine interposition which scattered the young church from Jerusalem. Perhaps it is significant that no name of any priest who became a Christian is found in the New Testament. Plumptre was evidently wrong in his deduction that: No priest is named as a follower of the Lord; and, up to this time, none had been converted by the apostles … the new fact may be connected with the new teaching of Stephen.[17]There was no “new teaching” by Stephen, whose talent did not consist of inventing new teachings but in the skilled advocacy of the teachings “once for all” delivered to the apostles. As will appear more clearly in Stephen’s speech (fully reported in Acts 6:7), there was no “new” element in it. Obedient to the faith … Here is another outcropping of that fundamental fact of the New Testament, making “faith” not a subjective thing at all but an objective obedience of the gospel commandments. As De Welt said: We must not overlook the expression, “obedient to the faith.” There was something more to their faith than mere mental assent; there was something in it that demanded obedience … repentance and baptism … for the remission of sins.[18]“This obedience is rendered not by believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it."[19] Wherever faith is mentioned in the New Testament as the basis of God’s forgiveness, remission of sins, or justification, it is invariably an “obedient faith” which is meant. See Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26. [16] As quoted by F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 131. [17] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 35. [18] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 86. [19] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 110. Verse 8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people.No record of specific signs has come down to us; but the fact of their designation here as “great” proves them to have been miracles of the first magnitude. Stephen was a man of the most noble character and of the mightiest ability, “the morning star who ushered in the dawn of St. Paul’s ministry!"[20] This verse is “the first indication of miracles worked by any (of our Lord’s followers) except the apostles of the Lord Jesus."[21]Even these signs, however, were not done apart from the apostles, because it was through the laying on of their hands that Stephen had received such powers. [20] G. B. F. Hallock, Doran’s Ministers Manual (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1930), p. 579. [21] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 44. Verse 9 But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake.Synagogue … used here in the singular appears to be the designation of a single place frequented by the various persons mentioned; but the existence of so many synagogues in Jerusalem at that time (Halleck says “there were four hundred and eighty”)[22] has led some to suppose that two or more synagogues are in view here; but McGarvey was right in viewing the question as “of no special importance."[23]Libertines … would be better translated “Freedmen,” as in the English Revised Version (1885) margin. Members of this group had once been slaves, but had received their liberty. A great many of the Christians in those early years were slaves, the same being indicated by their names as given in Romans 16; but the Libertines had been freed. The place names here refer to non-Palestinian areas of the Roman empire populated by Jews of the Diaspora. Alexandria, aside from Rome and Jerusalem, was the largest Jewish city of antiquity; and Cyrene and Cilicia might have been mentioned by Luke because of the connection of Rufus, Alexander, and Simon with the former, and the fact of Paul’s being from Tarsus, the principal city of the latter. Not able to withstand the wisdom … It is rather remarkable that wisdom should have been ascribed to Stephen, in view of the fact that in the gospels it is attributed to our Lord (Matthew 13:54, etc.) and mentioned as belonging to Solomon (Matthew 12:42). “It implies something higher even than the `consolation’ from which Barnabas took his name."[24] It was this great wisdom of Stephen that enabled him completely to vanquish all opponents of the truth he proclaimed. [22] G. B. F. Hallock, op. cit., p. 579. [23] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 112. [24] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 36. Verse 11 Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.They suborned men … Men do not need to be bribed to tell the truth; and the Pharisees’ money in view in this verse is proof enough that the testimony procured by it was false; but such is the mystery of evil that in every generation there must be champions of every lie Satan ever invented. Regarding the false charges alleged against Stephen, “Baur and Zeller accused Luke of uttering an untruth, for … they alleged that Stephen had really entertained the opinions and spoken the words with which he was charged."[25] It is of no significance that the Pharisees might indeed have “interpreted” some of Stephen’s words as blasphemous, because the Pharisees themselves were the actual blasphemers through their conceited device of equating their own prejudiced interpretations with the law of God. On the face of it, the lying charge that Stephen had blasphemed either God or Moses was unsupported by any fact whatever. As De Welt expressed it: “The accusation was nothing but a black lie”;[26] and we might add that the falsity of the charges was matched by the deceit of the suborned witnesses pretending to have “heard” Stephen say things, despite the probability that they had “heard” nothing at all, but were told what to say by the paymasters procuring the perjury. By definition, “suborned witnesses” are “false witnesses.” [25] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 109. [26] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 88. Verse 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him into the council, and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law: for we heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us.Say … that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place … This was a lie in that neither our Lord nor Stephen ever declared that he, Christ, would destroy the temple; what Jesus actually said was that they, the religious leaders, would destroy it, that is, the temple of his body, the same having no reference at all to the secular temple of the Jews. Moreover, at that same moment, Jesus promised that he would “raise it up” (the temple of his body) in three days (John 2:19-22). Jesus indeed prophesied the destruction of the temple, promising not that he himself would destroy it, but affirming that “The king (God) would send his armies (those of the Romans) and destroy those murderers and burn their city” (Matthew 22:7). Change the customs … Only malignant spite could construe Stephen’s preaching the very changes God himself had prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures as blasphemy, either of God or Moses. Thus it was no mere twisting what Jesus or Stephen had said, no mere distortion of their words, which was practiced by the suborned witnesses. Their testimony was totally false. The Pharisaical plot that led to the murder of Stephen was successful, whereas the opposition of the Sadducees had largely failed; and the circumstances that made it so were: (1) the Pharisees, by far more popular than the Sadducees, were the leaders, their engagement in the opposition deriving, in all probability, from the inroads the new faith had made upon their own party (Acts 6:7); (2) they directed their murderous purpose, not against the Twelve, but against a prominent new personality but recently elevated to popular esteem; (3) it was directed against a single individual, not against a group; (4) they stoned him on the spot, not bothering to procure a verdict; it was exactly the same kind of vicious murder they tried unsuccessfully to perpetrate against Christ himself. The action of the Sanhedrin in this murder was totally illegal, being contrary to the laws both of Rome and of the Jews; and yet it succeeded in their objective of killing their intended victim whose arguments they were unable to answer. Over and beyond the circumstances named above, it was time, in the will of God, for the church to be scattered; and, therefore, God here permitted what he had not permitted before. Verse 15 And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.Saul of Tarsus was in that council, and it is a most reasonable conjecture that he reported this phenomenon to Luke. As to what it was, many prefer to view it as merely the radiance of holy and righteous zeal in the person of the martyred Stephen; but it is not safe to limit it to that which is purely natural. As Lange said: “It obviously describes an objective, and, indeed, an extraordinary phenomenon."[27] Whatever it was, Paul never forgot it; nor could he ever erase from his memory the sorrow of that tragic day when the first martyr of the Christian religion sealed his faith with his blood. ENDNOTE: [27] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 110.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 61. What was the numerical condition of the disciples now 2. Tell what arose. 3. Who brought up the murmuring ? 4. State difference between these and the Hebrews. 5. Who were being neglected? 6. In what circumstance was this claimed to be done ? 7. Refer to the origin of this service. 8. Who are meant by “the twelve” ? 9. What did they call? 10. What did they say would not be reasonable? 11. What clamor seemed to suggest such a neglect? 12. To what does “serve” refer in verse two? 13. Explain what would be unreasonable about this. 14. Who were to do the “looking out” ? 15. How many men were to be selected ? 16. Of what kind of reputation? 17. To be full of what? 18. From among whom must this selection be made? 19. Would these all be Christians? 20. Might there be some not having the Spirit ? 21. Was possession of it necessary to being a Christian? 22. Or was it any personal advantage to possess it? 23. Why should it be required in this case ? 24. Who were to do the selecting? 25. Who were to do the appointing? 26. What opportunity would this leave for the apostles ? 27. How was the proposition received by the people ? 28. Name two of the men selected. 29. Cah you call them deacons by biblical authority? 30. Before whom were the seven men set? 31. Tell the ceremony the apostles performed. 32. What was conferred by laying on of apostles hands ? 33. What happened to the word of God? 34. Does his mean additional revelation? 35. What was multiplied ? 36. Tell what special class furnished obedience. 37. How many priests could there be at one time? 38. Which of the seven is now introduced? 39. Of what is he said to be full? 40. What did he do? 41. Was this done for a select few? 42. Did he meet with any opposition? 43. What use is made of the word “ synagogue” ? 44. Name the classes arrayed before Stephen. 45. What were they doing with him? 46. In the dispute which was victor? ‘ 47. State the means with which he disputed. 48. How had he obtained these means ? 49. In what manner did they secure men? 50. State what they testified. 51. Name the three classes they stirred up. 53. What did they set up? 54. Tell what they accused against Stephen. 55. Where did they claim to got their information ? 56. What saying of Jesus did they pervert? 57. State what Jesus really meant. 58. Was the charge disquieting to Stephen? 59. In the hearing how was his countenance ? 60. By whom was this fact observed ?

Acts 6:1-15

Acts 6:3. Look ye out is from EPI-, which Thayer defines, “To look (about) for, look out.” Robinson combines his definition and explanation in one sentence as follows: “To look at in order to select, to look out, to seek out, e. g., persons for office.” The brethren were to find the men, but the qualifications were stipulated by the apostles. Some of the qualifications that are required of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-12 are not mentioned in the present instance. This was in the beginning of the church, and also was while the apostles were present in person. As time went on and the organization of the institution of Christ was being made more complete, He added other qualifications, but nothing was added to their work as deacons. For the phrase full of the Holy Ghost, see the comments at chapter 4:31.

That information will explain why these men could have some measure of the Holy Ghost at the time of their selection, and yet require the laying on of the apostles’ hands (verses 6, 8) for them to work miracles. Wisdom is from SOPHIA, and Thayer defines it in general as follows: “Wisdom, broad and full intelligence.” He explains that any particular shade of meaning must be determined by the context in which it is used. Hence in the passage of this paragraph he says it means, “skill in the management of affairs.” That is appropriate since these men were to handle the distribution of goods. And being full of the Holy Ghost corresponds with the requirement in 1 Timothy 3:8 that they be “not greedy of filthy lucre.” The wording is different in the two places, but both refer to the qualification that would be needed in the work of handling the funds that were contributed by the disciples. A man who is full of the Holy Ghost would not be so interested in his own temporal affairs that he would come short of his duty on such a matter.

Acts 6:2

2Act 6:2. This is the only place in the New Testament where the work of the deacons is shown. Their qualifications are stated in another passage (1 Timothy 3:8-12), but the work belonging to men as official deacons is not to be found in any passage but this verse. The twelve means the apostles who were busy delivering instructions to the people on spiritual matters. Not reason denotes it would not be acting with good judgment. Leave the ward of God would mean a ceasing of their preaching the word of God.

Serve is from , and Thayer’s definition at this place is, “To minister, i. e., supply food and the necessaries of life.” He then comments, “To provide, take care of, distribute, the things necessary to sustain life, Acts 6:2. Absolutely, those are said to take care of the poor and the sick, who administer the office of deacon in the Christian churches, to serve as deacons.” It is interesting to know that, the six words “use the office of a dea con” in 1 Timothy 3:10 all come from this one Greek word translated serve in our present verse. Incidentally, this shows that we should regard the men whom the apostles appointed as being deacons. In truth, were we to reject them as deacons, then we would be left with the baffling situation of having been given important qualifications of deacons, but no instructions as to what they were to do, for no information on that subject is in any other place.

It is true that the Greek word in general, without any consideration of the context, could mean unofficial as well as official deacons, and also their work might consist of any manner of service. In that general sense, all members of the church are deacons, both men and women. But we cannot put that meaning unto the word in the present instance, for the apostles stated the kind of service for which they proposed to appoint (making them officials) the men; that was shown in the word tables. This is from TRAPEZA, which Thayer defines, “a table,” then gives his explanation, “a table on which food is placed, an eating table.” He gives a specific definition of the word in our verse which is, “To set a table, i. e., food before one.” This settles the question of the work belonging to men as deacons, that it is to see that food is provided for those who are needy.

The amount of loose thinking and acting on this subject that has been done is deplorable. Many people think that the work of the deacons is to “pass the emblems.” Others even today will insist that it is the place of the deacons to “attend to any of the temporal affairs of the congregation.” They will then expose the weakness and inconsistency of their position by allowing those things to be done by almost any member of the congregation, even though they may not possess half of the qualifications required of deacons. If the elders see fit to ask the deacons to perform some of the temporal affairs of the church, that is their right, and these men may comply with the request of the rulers. But they should not do so as deacons, for such things are no part of the office of deacons.

Acts 6:4

4Acts 6:4. After completing the arrangements for taking care of the temporal needs, the apostles said they would devote their time to spiritual matters.

Acts 6:5

5Acts 6:5. A spirit of cooperation prevailed between the apostles and the multitude of disciples. Stephen is mentioned especially in connection with being full of the Holy Ghost. It, was fitting to give him special mention in view of the glorious work he did in defending the faith, and sealing his courage in a violent death. But we know the others also had the qualifications, for they were required of them all and the apostles would not have appointed them had they not been qualified as stipulated. Philip is the same one who became known as “the evangelist,” who preached to the people of Samaria. Nothing is said of any of the others that we know about, except what is said of them as a group working in conjunction with the apostles.

Acts 6:6

6Acts 6:6. Having selected these men according to instructions, the multitude presented them to the apostles who laid hands on them, accompanying the act with prayer.

Acts 6:7

7Acts 6:7. Word of God increased. After the deacons were appointed to handle the temporal needs of the disciples, the disturbances were evidently calmed. That gave the apostles fuller opportunity for preaching the word of God, and this is why the word increased is used, meaning increased occasions for offering it to the people. The aforesaid furtherance of the preaching resulted in the increase of disciples in Jerusalem. Another thing that helped the spread of the Gospel, was the work of the deacons who engaged in the preaching as well as attending to their official work.

For while the specific function of the deacons is to care for the temporal needs of the congregation, that does not need to prevent them from spiritual activities as their talents and opportunities permitted. The mention of priests becoming obedient to the faith is for the purpose of showing the growing influence that the word of God was having among those who were usually opposed to the work of Christ.

Acts 6:8

8Acts 6:8. Stephen could do these miracles because the hands of an apostle were laid on him (verse 6). The New Testament was not in existence yet and it was necessary to have men equipped to support their preaching with such special evidence. This is taught in Ephesians 4:8-14, where Paul is considering both the temporary and the permanent form of the plan of salvation under Christ. But while these deacons could preach the word, and even confirm it with miracles, they could not bestow such power upon others, not having that “measure” of the Spirit Hence after they would make converts to the Gospel, it required the hands of an apostle to confer miraculous power on them. (See chapter 8:14-17.)

Acts 6:9

9Acts 6:9. Certain of the synagogue. The first definition in the lexicon for synagogue is, “In the New Testament, an assembly of men.” It is used in the same sense as “a congregation.” For a full description of the subject, see the notes at Matthew 4:23. Libertines. In his historical comments of this word Thayer gives the following: “Jews who had been made captives by the Romans under Pompey but were afterward set free; and who, although they had fixed their abode at Rome, had built at their own expense a synagogue at Jerusalem which they frequented when in that city. The name Libertines adhered to them to distinguish them from the free-born Jews who had subsequently [afterward] taken up their residence in Rome.” Cyrenians were Jewish dwellers in Cy-renaica who were in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and gave their name to one of the synagogues of that city.

Alexandrians were Jewish colonists of Alexandria in Egypt, who were admitted to the privileges of citizenship and had a synagogue in Jerusalem. Cilicia was a province lying on the northeast shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and was the native country of Paul. The Asia that is meant here is a part of the province of Asia Minor (today known as Turkey). Jews from these various places were in Jerusalem on account of the feast of Pentecost, and were displeased with the teaching of Stephen.

Acts 6:10

0Acts 6:10. One part of the definition for resist in the lexicon is “to withstand,” and means that although the Jews from all the places named combined in disputing with Stephen, they were not able to meet his claims for the doctrine of Christ. Wisdom is from SOPHIA which Thayer defines, “Wisdom, broad and full intelligence.” Spirit is from PNEUMA which the same lexicon defines in this passage, “The disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one; the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire.” The personal intelligence of Stephen was backed up by the Spirit that was given him through the laying on of the hands of an apostle. This explains why those envious Jews could not “meet the arguments” that he put before them.

Acts 6:11

1Act 6:11.. Suborned is from HUPO-BALLO which Thayer defines, “To instruct privately; instigate, suborn.” It means they influenced these false wit nesses in an underhanded sort of way that was in the nature of a bribe. The inspired writer says that Stephen spoke with wisdom and spirit, so we know these witnesses made false statements, even though we do not have any record of what they said up to this point. But his speech that is recorded in the next chapter will show us that they were the ones who had blasphemed, for that speech is made up of a respectful recital of the history of many centuries, and that account was written by Moses whose inspiration Stephen recognized.

Acts 6:12

2Act 6:12. Stephen was out before the public where he had a perfect right to be; he was preaching the Gospel, which every Christian has a right to do. They means the people from the different countries named in verse 9, who had disputed with Stephen but could not show anything wrong with his teaching. On the strength of the false witnesses of verse 11, they worked up a riotous spirit among the people under their leaders. These men ignored all rules of justice and forced him into the council (Sanhedrin).

Acts 6:13

3Act 6:13. Once within the grasp of that prejudiced assembly it was not hard to produce false witnesses, for they had already been prepared in mind for such a work by the crookedness mentioned in verse 11. The accusations of this verse are general, and if looked at without any explanation would certainly make an unfavorable impression on any court, and more so on one that was already ill-disposed toward a prisoner. It would be a very wicked thing to blaspheme the holy place (Jerusalem with its temple) and the law (of Moses). To blaspheme means to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate” [falsely accuse.]

Acts 6:14

4Acts 6:14. These false witnesses pretended to specify concerning the general accusations of verse 13. The falsity of the charges will be realized by all who will follow the teaching of Jesus while he was on the earth. He always spoke respectfully concerning Moses, and censured the hypocritical Jews for not being true to the law. Change the customs. Jesus never taught that in the sense those enemies placed in the term. It is true He often announced that a change of rules was to take place among God’s people, but heshowed that even Moses predicted such a change. (Deuteronomy 18:18-20.)

Acts 6:15

5Acts 6:15. Angel is from ANGELOS, and its primary meaning Is, “A messenger, one who is sent,” according to both Thayer and Robinson. There could be nothing in the face of a man from the physical standpoint that would show any indication of his being a messenger, except when considered on the negative basis. Had Stephen been guilty of the evil things charged against him, his face or countenance would have reflected it, for he certainly would have had “a guilty look.” Instead of such an expression, the countenance of this righteous man had the appearance of one who was faithfully delivering the message (the business of an angel) of Him whose truth was offered for man’s benefit. Stephen was not cowed or in the least intimidated by the brazen stare fixed toward him by the crowd in the council.