Stephen

The First Martyr

The man who appears for so short a time on the pages of the New Testament might well have been as prominent as the Apostle Paul himself had he lived. Tantalisingly brief as is the sketch of his character, it is enough to delineate a man of sterling worth and immense potentialities in the service of Christ. And yet, in the unfathomable wisdom of God, his consecrated life was abruptly cut short after not more than a few months service in the cause of the Faith.

Stephen was one of several outstanding men in the original circle of believers immediately after Pentecost who, although not of the Twelve, were nevertheless recognised by the Christian community in Jerusalem as "of honest report, full of faith and wisdom and of the Holy Spirit". As such he was one of the seven chosen by the assembly to relieve the twelve apostles of much of their more mundane duties such as the administration of the temporal affairs of the church—the giving of alms to the poor, the care of the sick, the general welfare of the believers, and so on. The purpose of this innovation, as explained by the spokesman for the Apostles, was that they themselves might be the more free for the exercise of their pastoral duties, the leading of the church in prayer and instruction, and the ministry of the Word, which included exposition and doctrinal instruction. So the order of deacons came into being—the literal meaning of the Greek word is servant, and this is what the seven were ordained to be, helpers and assistants to the Apostles for the better conduct and the promotion of the work of the Church.

This had to include evangelism, which was of necessity a very important part of the life and activities of the infant Church. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation" Jesus had commanded them, and the history of the Apostles' later activities shows how literally they accepted this injunction and with what vigour they carried it out. But not only the Apostles were evangelists; in varying degree all of their converts took up the torch and spread the message of the risen Christ wherever they went. It is obvious therefore that these seven men would be outstanding in this direction also, and the fact that Stephen is mentioned first in the narrative in Acts Ch.6 might well be taken to indicate that he was accepted as a leader among them just as Peter was the accepted leader among the Twelve.

They were all Hellenistic Jews, born in the Gentile world, perhaps Syria or Egypt, Greece or Asia, or even Rome, and all with Greek rather than Hebrew names. But they were all Jews, children of Abraham. There was apparently quite a colony of such (always called "Grecians" in the New Testament) in Jerusalem and many of them had become converts. The appointment of these seven was in consequence of a complaint that there was a certain amount of racial discrimination in the administration of benefits, in favour of native‑born Jews, and it may well be that Peter and the others encouraged the selection of foreign‑born Jews to this newly‑created office in order to allay further fears of partiality. At any rate, Stephen, a Jew from overseas, found himself occupying the most important position in the Church next to that of the Apostles.

He was evidently an educated man and possessed of considerable ability and perhaps fluency. At first he became notable for the performance of wonders and miracles among the people. This, of course, was the hallmark of the Holy Spirit at that time and all the Twelve, and evidently some others also, possessed these gifts, necessary at the beginning to demonstrate their possession of Divine authority to represent Christ in the world and speak in his Name. But Stephen also possessed talents which probably none of the Twelve did possess, the power of debating with the educated and learned of this world to a degree otherwise manifested only by the Apostle Paul later on. Acts 6.9‑10 tells how he engaged in debate with African and Asian and Egyptian and Roman Jews (the "Libertines" mentioned in this verse were Roman Jews who had been taken to Rome as captives during the many wars of the immediate past, and later granted their freedom and liberty to return to Judea) and quite evidently on an intellectual level. In consequence "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake" (Ch.6.10). It would almost seem as if by common consent the persuasion of the better educated Jews of the Dispersion as against that of the native Judean Jews was being largely left to these men of the same national origins.

A reflection arising from all this is that Stephen must have had much in common with the Apostle Paul as respects ability to talk and debate with the "wise of this world" on their own level. Had he been sent out to the Gentiles, as was Paul, he might well have had just as colourful a career and perhaps just as much influence on the establishment and the doctrine of the Church as has Paul. Why so apparently a promising and useful Christian life should be prematurely cut short by a martyr's death is one of those questions which it is easy to ask and impossible to answer. One can only say, as did Eli in a different age and a totally different setting "It is the Lord; let him do what seemeth him good".

Stephen's debates with his antagonists, or more correctly, perhaps, his effective presentation of the Gospel against all their arguments, roused them to fury and the determination that at all costs he must be silenced. They hired men to concoct false accusations of blasphemy against him and had him arraigned before the Sanhedrin—the same Sanhedrin which only a few months before had quailed before the iron resolution of Peter and the others over their fixed resolve to continue preaching Jesus and the resurrection. There is no evidence that these Pharisees and Sadducees were any less apprehensive than they were then. The complainants stated their case, the witnesses repeated their fabricated story as required by the ecclesiastical law; all that the High Priest could say after hearing it alleged that Stephen had predicted the destruction of the Temple and abrogation of the Mosaic Law, things which normally would have roused the assembly to fury, was the very mild enquiry "Are these things so?". It was only a few weeks when the same High Priest had let the apostles go free from a similar trial with the supine (lethargic) injunction not to preach Jesus again, knowing full well that his words would be entirely disregarded. It is very possible that Caiaphas was heartily wishing that this trial had not been foisted upon him; there was a power in this Christian evangel which he felt unable to withstand, and provided he could still retain his own position in the sight of the people generally, he would prefer to ignore it.

The foreign‑born Jews who had laid the complaint were, however, of different stuff. They were out for Stephen's blood and they meant to have it. One recalls that when Paul was arraigned in Jerusalem nearly twenty years later, they were Asiatic Jews who stirred up the commotion. This particular episode has much in common with that one.

What has been called "Stephen's defence before the Sanhedrin" was a masterly one. He made no attempt to defend himself from the accusations. He did not even answer the question. He embarked straight away upon a recapitulation of Hebrew history in a fashion that immediately attracted the attention of his hearers. He started with Abraham, the venerated father of them all, reminding them of their God‑given calling and privilege inherited from the patriarch. "Men, brethren and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran" (Ch.7.2). From Abraham's first entry into the land of Canaan he passed swiftly to the famine which threatened his seed, the twelve patriarchs who became the fathers of their nation, and the deliverance which came through Joseph by the overruling providence of God. From that he went on to the second great deliverance, that of the Exodus under Moses, another saviour raised up by God. In masterly fashion he showed that Israel rejected the saviour, first demanding of him "who made thee a ruler and a judge" and secondly rebelling against his leadership in the desert and planning to return to Egypt. Then they turned to idolatry, forsaking God who had delivered them from Egypt and worshipping a golden calf. So God gave them up to their desires and yet He was true to his promise and at length He brought their children into the land of promise under the leadership of Joshua and established them as a nation, the nation of whom the assembly before which he stood were the present representatives and spiritual rulers.

So far Stephen had recited history, a history with which all his judges were perfectly familiar and which they were never tired to hear narrated. They were proud of their descent from Abraham and arrogant in their claimed position as the chosen nation of God. The man before them was talking now of the glorious days of David and of Solomon, days when the kingdom extended far and wide, and of the Temple which Solomon had built. They knew of the glories of that Temple before its destruction by the Babylonians and they also knew and took pride in the knowledge that their own Temple, built for them by Herod the king, was an even more magnificent structure. But the complacency vanished from their faces when Stephen went on to recite the very words of Solomon when he dedicated his Temple; "the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands". "Heaven is my throne" God had said through the prophet "What house will ye build unto me that can compare with that? What place of rest can you offer that can reach up to my heavenly sanctuary, where I dwell in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see?". That was the drift of Stephen's meaning and his judges

were not slow to appreciate the fact. He was getting perilously close to telling them that their treasured Temple and all that was connected with it was as nothing in the sight of God and must one day be swept away as had Solomon's six centuries before, and they with it. The false witnesses had averred (asserted) that he had predicted the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Mosaic dispensation and it looked to them that it was this toward which his words were now tending. The interest with which they had listened heretofore evaporated into open hostility and Stephen could not fail to sense the change.

This is, most likely, the explanation of Stephen's sudden change of tone at vs.51. Up to vs.50 he was giving a sober and restrained recapitulation of the ways of God with Israel from earliest times. Now he breaks off, almost in mid‑sentence, and pronounces a bitter and almost savage denunciation of their hypocrisy and unbelief. It is almost as if he read in their faces that which told him that no matter how eloquently he reminded them of their responsibility before God as custodians of the national mission they were impervious to all that God was waiting to do and to give. There was no hope of their repentance and Stephen knew it. So he gave vent to the feelings which had possessed him all along and he spoke the words of condemnation knowing full well that in so doing he was signing his own death warrant.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers" (Ch.7.51‑52).

The words were spoken and they could not be recalled. Stung to fury, the members of the Sanhedrin ground their teeth in rage. Within themselves they knew the truth of Stephen's accusation; but to be told of it by this layman was beyond all toleration. Not that at that moment they intended to do anything about it. As in the case of Peter and the others a little while earlier they would probably have admonished Stephen to cease from preaching Jesus and the resurrection, and let him go. They had no power to pass a death sentence—that was vested in the Roman governor who had already shown his contempt for the ecclesiastical controversies of the Jews—and the most they could do was imprison the accused and sentence him to a flogging. And so far there had been no corroborative evidence offered in support of the accusation brought by the two false witnesses, and the Sanhedrin at least observed the formalities of their judicial laws. So they fumed and threatened and for the moment went no further.

Stephen himself resolved the situation. Whether he was in fact vouchsafed a vision of heavenly things, or in the ecstatic state of his mind resolved his thoughts into a visual impression may be open to debate, but there is no doubt that as he stood there looking upwards he saw something. "...he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God" (Ch.7.55‑56).

A moment's stupefied silence, and then a roar of rage and anger. He had uttered the greatest blasphemy possible to a Jew; he had claimed to see God, the God who had once told Moses that no man could look upon his face and live. There need be no further enquiry now; the accused had convicted himself out of his own mouth. For such a crime there could be only one penalty, that laid down in the Law of Moses, death by stoning (Lev.24:16). It is true that the law in this respect had long since fallen into disuse, and in any case Rome did not allow the passing and execution of the death sentence for any reason by the Sanhedrin. But all that was of no importance at this present moment. In the vehemence of their anger they lost all control of themselves, rose from their seats and dragged their prisoner to a place outside the city walls where they could execute their design without interference by the Roman legionaries. And there they stoned him, the while he called upon God to receive his spirit and forgive his murderers. So Stephen died, the first martyr for the Christian faith.

There is good reason for thinking that Saul of Tarsus, afterwards known as Paul the Apostle, was at least in the forefront of those demanding Stephen's death. His own words in Acts 22:20 and of Luke in Acts 8:1 to the effect that he was "consenting" to his death implies much more than appears on the surface. The word there rendered "consenting" means to agree to a course of action emphatically and with considerable pleasure. The known actions of Saul immediately after the martyrdom are consistent with a bigoted and relentless opposition to all that Stephen stood for and preached. As required by the Mosaic Law (Deut.17.7) the first men to cast stones at the condemned had to be the accusing witnesses. Ch.7:58 says that the witnesses, in divesting themselves of their outer garments in order to perform this duty, laid them at Saul's feet. His action in thus guarding their garments was a further tacit approval of all that they were doing. It must have been a bitter blow for Saul when later on, on the road to Damascus, he himself saw virtually the same vision which led to his condemnation of Stephen, and realised that after all Stephen was speaking the truth.

His was a short life in the Christian way, and yet, who knows, perhaps wonderfully effective and used of God. It might very well have been Stephen's faithful witness, and unflinching courage and faith in the face of death, which so worked on the mind of Saul that he himself, in his turn, surrendered his life to Stephen's Lord and became that instrument in the Lord's hand which has had so incalculable an effect upon the growth and instruction of the Church in all ages since. Had Stephen not acted as he did, there might never have been an Apostle Paul.

AOH