Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes, and came against him and seized him, then brought him in to the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” All who sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face like it was the face of an angel.
Show the surrounding paragraph
Acts 6:11-15 sits inside this longer paragraph.
Stephen, full of faith and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. But some of those who were of the synagogue called “The Libertines”, and of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia arose, disputing with Stephen. They weren’t able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes, and came against him and seized him, then brought him in to the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” All who sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face like it was the face of an angel.
Parallel Translations
-
Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.”
They stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes, and came against him and seized him, then brought him in to the council,
and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.
For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”
All who sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face like it was the face of an angel.
-
Then sent they in men which sayd: we have hearde him speake blasphemous wordes agaynst Moses and agaynst God.
And they moved the people and the elders and the scribes: and came apon him and caught him and brought him to the counsell
and brought forth falce witnesses which sayde. This man ceasith not to speake blasphemous wordes agaynst this holy place and the lawe:
for we hearde him saye: this Iesus of Nazareth shall destroye this place and shall chaunge the ordinaunces which Moses gave vs.
And all that sate in the counsell loked stedfastly on him and sawe his face as it had bene the face of an angell.
Show all 3 translations
-
Then they suborned men, which saide, We haue heard him speake blasphemous wordes against Moses, and God.
Thus they mooued the people and the Elders, and the Scribes: and running vpon him, caught him, and brought him to the Councill,
And set forth false witnesses, which sayd, This man ceasseth not to speake blasphemous wordes against this holy place, and the Law.
For we haue heard him say, that this Iesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the ordinances, which Moses gaue vs.
And as all that sate in the Councill, looked stedfastly on him, they saw his face as it had bene the face of an Angel.
Cross-references (82)
- Matthew 13:43 (v15) Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
- Ecclesiastes 8:1 (v15) Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man’s wisdom makes his face shine, and the hardness of his face is…
- Matthew 26:59-60 (v11) Now the chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they…
- Exodus 34:29-35 (v15) When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mountain, Moses…
- Proverbs 15:18 (v12) A wrathful man stirs up contention, but one who is slow to anger appeases strife.
Show all 80 cross-references
- Daniel 9:26 (v14) After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing. The people of the prince who come will destroy the city…
- Acts 21:21 (v14) They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise…
- Hebrews 12:26-28 (v14) whose voice shook the earth then, but now he has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heavens.”…
- Matthew 17:2 (v15) He was changed before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light.
- Acts 14:2 (v12) But the disbelieving Jews stirred up and embittered the souls of the Gentiles against the brothers.
- Acts 15:1 (v14) Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.”
- Luke 21:6 (v14) “As for these things which you see, the days will come, in which there will not be left here one stone on another that will not be thrown…
- John 4:21 (v14) Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father.
- Acts 6:11 (v13) Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.”
- Acts 28:17 (v14) After three days Paul called together those who were the leaders of the Jews. When they had come together, he said to them, “I, brothers,…
- 2 Corinthians 3:18 (v15) But we all, with unveiled face seeing the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even…
- Galatians 3:19 (v14) Then why is there the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise has been made. It…
- Galatians 3:23 (v14) But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
- Galatians 4:3-5 (v14) So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental principles of the world. But when the fullness of the time…
- Hebrews 8:6-13 (v14) But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better promises has…
- Hebrews 9:9-11 (v14) This is a symbol of the present age, where gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of making the…
- Hebrews 10:1-18 (v14) For the law, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which…
- Acts 21:28 (vv11, 13) crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place. Moreover,…
- Acts 25:8 (vv13–14) while he said in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all.”
- 1 Kings 21:10-13 (v11) Set two men, wicked fellows, before him, and let them testify against him, saying, ‘You cursed God and the king!’ Then carry him out, and…
- Isaiah 66:1-6 (v14) Yahweh says, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build to me? Where will I rest? For my hand…
- Jeremiah 7:4-14 (v14) Don’t trust in lying words, saying, ‘Yahweh’s temple, Yahweh’s temple, Yahweh’s temple, are these.’ For if you thoroughly amend your ways…
- Zechariah 14:2 (v14) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city will be taken, the houses rifled, and the women ravished. Half of…
- Matthew 26:57 (v12) Those who had taken Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together.
- Luke 13:34-35 (v14) “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children…
- Luke 21:24 (v14) They will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles,…
- Acts 26:3 (v14) especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently.
- 2 Corinthians 3:7-8 (v15) But if the service of death, written engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly on the…
- Hebrews 7:11-19 (v14) Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for…
- Psalms 27:12 (v13) Don’t deliver me over to the desire of my adversaries, for false witnesses have risen up against me, such as breathe out cruelty.
- Psalms 35:11 (v13) Unrighteous witnesses rise up. They ask me about things that I don’t know about.
- Psalms 56:5 (v13) All day long they twist my words. All their thoughts are against me for evil.
- Isaiah 65:15 (v14) You will leave your name for a curse to my chosen; and the Lord Yahweh will kill you. He will call his servants by another name,
- Isaiah 66:19-21 (v14) “I will set a sign among them, and I will send those who escape of them to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to…
- Jeremiah 26:6-9 (v14) then I will make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.” ’ ” The priests and the prophets…
- Jeremiah 26:12 (v14) Then Jeremiah spoke to all the princes and to all the people, saying, “Yahweh sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city…
- Jeremiah 26:18 (v14) “Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies…
- Hosea 3:4 (v14) For the children of Israel shall live many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without sacred stone, and…
- Micah 3:12 (v14) Therefore Zion for your sake will be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem will become heaps of rubble, and the mountain of the temple like…
- Zechariah 11:1 (v14) Open your doors, Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars.
- Matthew 5:22 (v12) But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be in danger of the judgment. Whoever says to his brother,…
- Matthew 24:1-2 (v14) Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way. His disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he…
- Matthew 24:15 (v13) “When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let…
- Matthew 26:61 (v14) and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.’ ”
- Matthew 28:12-15 (v11) When they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave a large amount of silver to the soldiers, saying, “Say that his…
- Mark 14:58 (v14) “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ ”
- John 1:17 (v11) For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
- John 5:45-47 (v11) “Don’t think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, even Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you…
- John 9:29 (v11) We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.”
- John 16:3 (v11) They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.
- Acts 4:1-3 (v12) As they spoke to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came to them, being upset because they taught the…
- Acts 5:18 (v12) and laid hands on the apostles, then put them in public custody.
- Acts 5:27 (v12) When they had brought them, they set them before the council. The high priest questioned them,
- Acts 6:13 (v11) and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.
- Acts 7:37-39 (v11) This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel, ‘The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like…
- Acts 7:58 (v13) They threw him out of the city and stoned him. The witnesses placed their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.
- Acts 13:50 (v12) But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a persecution against Paul and…
- Acts 15:21 (v11) For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
- Acts 16:19-21 (v12) But when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace before the…
- Acts 17:5-6 (v12) But the unpersuaded Jews took along some wicked men from the marketplace, and gathering a crowd, set the city in an uproar. Assaulting the…
- Acts 17:13 (v12) But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there likewise,…
- Acts 18:6 (v11) When they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook out his clothing and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now…
- Acts 21:20-22 (v11) They, when they heard it, glorified God. They said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have…
- Acts 21:27 (v12) When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands…
- Acts 23:12-15 (v11) When it was day, some of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until…
- Acts 24:1-13 (v11) After five days, the high priest, Ananias, came down with certain elders and an orator, one Tertullus. They informed the governor against…
- Acts 25:3 (v11) asking a favor against him, that he would summon him to Jerusalem; plotting to kill him on the way.
- Acts 25:7 (v11) When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they…
- Romans 3:8 (v11) Why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), “Let’s do evil, that good may come?” Those who say so are justly…
- 1 Timothy 1:13 (v11) although I used to be a blasphemer, a persecutor, and insolent. However, I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
- Hebrews 3:2-5 (v11) who was faithful to him who appointed him, as also Moses was in all his house. For he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses,…
- Leviticus 24:16 (v11) He who blasphemes Yahweh’s name, he shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him. The foreigner as well as…
- John 10:33-36 (v11) The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered…
- Acts 18:12 (v12) But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat,
- Acts 26:11 (v11) Punishing them often in all the synagogues, I tried to make them blaspheme. Being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even…
80 distinct cross-references across this passage (82 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (23 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv12, 14, 15 12. Being overcome with the power of the Spirit,…
12. Being overcome with the power of the Spirit, they give over disputing, but they prepare false witnesses, that with false and slanderous reports, they may oppress him; whereby it appeareth that they did strive with an evil conscience. For what can be more unmeet than in their cause to lean unto lies? Admit he were a wicked man, and guilty, yet he must not have false witness borne against him. But hypocrites, which shroud themselves under zeal, do carelessly grant themselves leave to do that. We see how the Papists at this day corrupt manifest places of Scripture, and that wittingly, whilst that they will falsely wrest testimonies against us. I confess, indeed, that they offend for the most part through ignorance; yet can we find none of them which doth not grant himself liberty to corrupt both the sense and also the words of the Scripture, that they may bring our doctrine into contempt; yea, they slander us monstrously even in the pulpit. If you ask these Rabbins, whether it be lawful to slander a man or no, they will deny that it is lawful generally; but when they come unto us, good zeal doth excuse them, because they think that nothing is unlawful which may burden us or our cause; therefore they flatter themselves in lying, falsehood, and dogged impudence. Such hypocrisy did also blind them of whom Luke speaketh in this place, which used false witness to put Stephen to death; for when Satan reigneth, he doth not only prick forward the reprobate unto cruelty, but also blind their eyes, so that they think that they may do whatsoever they will. We are specially taught by this example, how dangerous the color of good zeal is, unless it be governed by the Spirit of God; for it breaketh out always into furious madness, and, in the mean season, it is a marvelous visor to cover all manner of wickedness.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv12, 13, 15 The first bloody persecution of the Church of Christ…
The first bloody persecution of the Church of Christ began and sprang from a Council of Priests by the suggestion of the University doctors.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv11–15 11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have…
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Ver. 11. Then they suborned] This they had learned of that old manslayer, Joh 8:44.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv11–15 What these blasphemous words were, we have, Act 6:14;…
What these blasphemous words were, we have, Act 6:14; which show, that the veil was yet over their hearts, and that they could not endure to hear, that the shadows must flee away when the sun is risen, and the types be abolished when the substance of the things typified is exhibited; for this truth was all the blasphemy this holy martyr was guilty of.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv11–15 Then they suborned men,.... Hired false witnesses, which seems…
Then they suborned men,.... Hired false witnesses, which seems to have been commonly done by the Jews; so they did in the case of Christ:
which said, we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God; that is, against the law of Moses, and so against God, who gave the law to Moses, as appears from Act 6:13 the blasphemous words seem to be, with respect to the ceremonial law, and the abrogation of it, which Stephen might insist upon, and they charged with blasphemy; see Act 6:14.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv14–15 We have heard him say - So they might.…
We have heard him say - So they might. But yet the consequence they drew would not follow.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv11, 12, 13, 15 Verse 11. Then they suborned men] υπεβαλον. They made…
Verse 11. Then they suborned men] υπεβαλον. They made underhand work; got associated to themselves profligate persons, who for money would swear any thing.
Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.] This was the most deadly charge they could bring against him. We have already seen, Mt 9:4, that blasphemy, when against GOD, signifies speaking impiously of his nature, attributes, or works; and, when against men, it signifies speaking injuriously of their character, blasting their reputation, c. These false witnesses came to prove that he had blasphemed Moses by representing him as an impostor, or the like and GOD, by either denying his being, his providence, the justice of his government, &c.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv11, 15 Act 6:11-14. Then they suborned men — As they…
Act 6:11-14. Then they suborned men — As they found they were incapable of defending themselves by fair argument, they had recourse to a most mean and dishonest fraud; they suborned men to bear false witness against him, and depose that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses — Their great and divinely-commissioned lawgiver; and against God — The great author of that law which Moses delivered by command from him. They were right in supposing that they who blasphemed Moses, if they meant the writings of Moses, which were given by inspiration of God, blasphemed God himself. They that speak reproachfully of the Scriptures, and ridicule them, reflect upon God himself, and do despite to him. But did Stephen blaspheme Moses? By no means; he was far from it. Christ and the preachers of his gospel never said any thing that looked like blaspheming Moses; they always quoted his writings with respect; appealed to them, and said no other things but what Moses foretold should come. Very unjustly, therefore, is Stephen indicted for blaspheming Moses. “On such terms,” says Baxter, “we dispute with malignant men: when they cannot resist the truth, they suborn men to swear to false accusations. And it is next to a miracle of Providence, that no greater number of religious persons have been murdered in the world, by the way of perjury and pretence of law, when so many thousands hate them, who make no conscience of false oaths.” And they stirred up the people and the elders — They incensed both the government and the mob against him, that if they could not prevail by the one, they might by the other; that if the sanhedrim should still think fit, according to Gamaliel’s advice, to let him alone, yet they might prevail against him by popular rage and tumult; or, if the people should countenance and protect him, they might effect his destruction by the authority of the elders and scribes. And came upon him, and caught him — Greek, επισταντες συνηρπασαν, rushing on him, they seized him, and brought him to the council; which, it seems, was then sitting; and there, in the presence of their highest court of judicature, they set up false witnesses — Witnesses that they themselves knew to be false; who said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words — These suborned witnesses, being brought together, imboldened one another in bearing a false testimony. Against this holy place — Meaning the temple, where they then were; and the law — The divinely- inspired law, as one that has no reverence at all for its authority. For we have heard him say, that Jesus shall destroy this place — Perhaps they had, but that did not prove that he had been guilty of blasphemy. Thus Christ was condemned as a blasphemer, for words which were thought to reflect upon the temple, for the honour of which they seemed to be greatly concerned, at the very time when by their wickedness they were profaning it; making it not only a house of merchandise, but a den of thieves. And shall change the customs which Moses delivered us — It is not probable that Stephen knew the mystery of the abolition of the Mosaic law, which even the apostles do not seem to have had now any idea of. And it is much less probable that he openly taught what Paul himself, many years after, only insinuated, and that with very great caution. Compare Gal 2:2. This therefore seems to have been merely an inference drawn by them from what he taught concerning the destruction coming on the Jews, if they continued in their unbelief: but it was a very precarious inference, as the city and temple had been destroyed before, without any repeal of the law, and therefore they were false witnesses. And they were still more so in affirming that in saying these things he had spoken blasphemous words against that holy place, and against the law — What blasphemy was it against that holy place, which they at once profaned and idolized, to say that it should not be perpetual, any more than Shiloh was? And that the just and holy God would not continue the privileges of his sanctuary to those that abused them? Had not the prophets given the same warning to their fathers, of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans? Nay, when the temple was first built, did not God himself give the same warning? This house, which is high, shall be an astonishment, 2Ch 7:21. And with respect to the law, which they charged him with blaspheming, that law of which they made their boast, and in which they put their trust, even then, when, through breaking it, they dishonoured God, (Rom 2:23,) how was Stephen’s saying, (if he really did say,) that Jesus would change the customs which Moses had delivered to them, blaspheming it or its glorious Author? Was it not foretold by the prophets, and therefore to be expected, that in the days of the Messiah, the old customs should be changed, and that the shadows should give place when the substance was come? This, however, was no essential change of the law, but the perfecting of it: for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; and if he changed some customs that Moses delivered, it was to introduce and establish those that were much better.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv11–15 Then they suborned men - To suborn in law…
Then they suborned men - To suborn in law means to procure a person to take such a false oath as constitutes perjury (Webster). It has substantially this sense here. It means that they induced them to declare what was false, or to bring a false accusation against him. This was done, not by declaring a palpable and open falsehood, but by “perverting” his doctrines, and by stating their own “inferences” as what he had actually maintained - the common way in which people oppose doctrines from which they differ. The Syriac reads this place, “Then they sent certain men, and instructed them that they should say, etc.” This was repeating an artifice which they had before practiced so successfully in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. See Mat 26:60-61.
We have heard ... - When they alleged that they had heard this is not said. Probably, however, they referred to some of his discourses with the people when he performed miracles and wonders among them, Act 6:8.
Read full note →
Blasphemous words - See the notes on Mat 9:3. Moses was regarded with profound reverence. His laws they held to be unchangeable. Any intimation, therefore, that there was a greater Lawgiver than he, or that his institutions were mere shadows and types, and were no longer binding, would be regarded as blasphemy, even though it should be spoken with the highest professed respect for Moses. That the Mosaic institutions were to be changed, and give place to another and a better dispensation, all the Christian teachers would affirm; but this was not said with a design to blaspheme or revile Moses. “In the view of the Jews,” to say that was to speak blasphemy; and hence, instead of reporting what he actually “did” say, they accused him of “saying” what “they” regarded as blasphemy. If reports are made of what people say, their very “words” should be reported; and we should not report our inferences or impressions as what they said.
And against God - God was justly regarded by the Jews as the giver of theft law and the author of their institutions. But the Jews, either willfully or involuntarily, not knowing that they were a shadow of good things to come, and were therefore to pass away, regarded all intimations of such a change as blasphemy against God. God had a right to change or abolish those ceremonial observances, and it was “not” blasphemy in Stephen to declare it.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv11, 13, 15 Who should say, that they heard him speaking words…
Who should say, that they heard him speaking words of blasphemy against Moses, and against God, against the law and the temple: that Jesus would destroy the temple. These accusations were forged; for the apostles themselves still frequented the temple, and Jesus came to fulfil the law, as to its moral precepts. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv11, 15 blasphemous words against Moses--doubtless referring to the impending disappearance…
blasphemous words against Moses--doubtless referring to the impending disappearance of the whole Mosaic system.
and against God--This must refer to the supreme dignity and authority which he claimed for Christ, as the head of that new economy which was so speedily to supersede the old (compare Act 7:56, Act 7:59-60).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv12, 13, 15 12. Came upon… caught… brought—The words imply a taking…
12. Came upon… caught… brought—The words imply a taking him by surprise and hurrying him by force into the presence of the Sanhedrin.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv11–15 11. Then they suborned men] Suborn = to provide,…
11. Then they suborned men] Suborn = to provide, but nearly always used in a bad sense. Subornation of perjury is the legal phrase for procuring a person who will take a false oath.
which said, &c.] The charge here laid against Stephen is afterwards defined. Blasphemous words against Moses and against God Was the construction which these witnesses put upon language which had probably been uttered by Stephen in the same way as Christ had said (Joh_4:21), “The time cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.”
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv11, 13, 14, 15 (11) Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.—The words…
(11) Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.—The words indicate with sufficient clearness the nature of Stephen’s teaching. The charge was a false one, but its falsehood was a distortion of the truth, as that against our Lord had been. He was accused of blasphemy in calling Himself the Son of God; making Himself equal with God (Mat_26:63; Joh_5:18); threatening to destroy the Temple (Mat_26:61)—each of the counts in the indictment resting on words that He had actually spoken. And Stephen, in like manner, was charged with offences for which there must have seemed colourable ground. He had taught, we must believe, that the days of the Temple were numbered; that with its fall the form of worship of which it was the representative would pass away, that the Law given by Moses was to make way for the higher revelation in Christ, and the privileges of the elect nation to be merged in the blessings of the universal Church. In this case, accordingly, the antagonism comes, not only or chiefly, as in the previous chapters, from the Sadducean high priests and their followers, but from the whole body of scribes and people. Pharisees and Sadducees, Hebrews and Hellenistæ, are once more brought into coalition against the new truth.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv11–15 Then they suborned, etc. The resource of those who…
Then they suborned, etc. The resource of those who are worsted in argument is violence or treachery. Blasphemous words against Moses. It must be remembered that at this time the whole Jewish people were in a state of ill-suppressed frenzy and most sensitive jealousy for the honor of the Mosaic institutions feelings which broke out in constant revolts against the Roman power. The accusation against the apostles of speaking blasphemies against Moses was therefore the most likely one they could have pitched upon to stir up ill will against them.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv11, 15 Then they suborned men.
Act_6:11-15
Then they suborned men.
Read full note →
The accusation of Stephen
I. Its authors (Act_6:9). Observe here--
1. That moral perversity is common to men of every race. All these men, Libertines, etc., differing widely in many respects, agreed in their antagonism to the true and Divine.
2. That theological controversy often irritates rather than convinces.
II. Its spirit (Act_6:10)--hostility to a truth which they felt an utter incapacity to deny. An unpalatable truth was forced upon them, despite of all their learning and logic, by the overwhehning arguments of one man.
1. This mortified their pride. Nothing makes the soul so furious as to wound its pride.
2. This struck at their most cherished prejudices.
III. Its subject (Act_6:11; Act_6:13-14). The charge here preferred would be considered by the Sanhedrin as the most heinous of crimes, sufficient to wake the vengeance of the nation. Blasphemous words against Moses, God, the holy place, and the law, a threat to destroy Jerusalem and change the customs of the Jewish nation!
IV. Its weakness.
1. The mode of procuring witnesses (Act_6:11). Also that there should be men who prefer pelf to principle. Facts require no such support.
2. The appearance of the accused (Act_6:15).
(1) The face is the mirror of the soul.
(2) Christianity makes the soul angelic. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The arraignment and transfiguration of St. Stephen
It is necessary that the Bible should be brief. A book so important must be made portable by the hand and the memory. Accordingly, out of a vast mass of materials the sacred writers have been directed to the choice of a very few. The thirty-three miracles of our Lord are specimens; why should others yielding no fresh lessons be detailed? Tautology only weakens effect. St. Stephen supplied the inspired specimen of martyrdom, although there were many others. Conformity to Christs sufferings according to that Word, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup, etc. You have it here. Brave protest for Christ in the face of those who have power to kill the body--it is here. Joy in the hope set before the martyr--it radiates from Stephens face. Love to persecutors mingled with stern faithfulness--it exhales like a precious perfume from Stephens prayer. Studied imitation of Christ in the act of dying--nowhere is this more remarkably exhibited than in the death of Stephen. This providential conformity to the image of Christ, however (as distinct from the studied imitation of Him), is the first thing which strikes us. What befell the disciple is what befell the Master over again.
I. The conduct of Stephens opponents. Infuriated by defeat in argument, they resorted to calumny and violence. Agents were employed to set about a story of blasphemy. With precipitate violence--the word used is the one applied to the seizure of the demoniac by the legion of devils, and to the seizure of St. Pauls vessel by the fury of the wind--they laid hands on him and hurried him away to the Sanhedrin. The paid agents of the Hellenist synagogues pronounced the formal accusation, This man ceases not to speak, etc. Now the actual deposition is to be made, and the witnesses feel that their words may be called in question, we hear no more of the big terms of Act_6:11. God is exchanged for the holy place, and Moses for the law. Full well they knew that Stephen had said nothing derogatory of Moses, much less of God. No doubt he had said much to this effect. Christ had predicted that not one stone of the temple should be left upon another, and Stephen echoed the prediction. Stephen too had probably seen further into the mystery of the admission of the Gentiles, and very possibly may have preached that Jewish rites were non-essential to salvation. But if Stephen had foretold all this, why are the witnesses stigmatised as false? Because they took his words out of the context which interpreted them, and gave them a totally different colour. Doubtless, like his Master, Stephen had the profoundest veneration for the temple and the law. But he had an intelligent apprehension of the place which each held in the system of true religion. He saw that both were elements of a preparatory discipline, and that now faith is come the schoolmaster was unnecessary. A man who says that a school book may be parted with when education is finished, by no means implies that school books are unnecessary while education is in progress. And if the words School books are valueless were separated from his explanation of the circumstances, the witness would be false. By telling half the truth we may convey quite as wrong an impression as by a contradiction of the truth. Nothing is easier and commoner than to make sweeping charges against these who maintain suspected propositions, while wilfully ignoring their explanation of what they hold. I have no right to say that a man denies inspiration because he denies verbal inspiration; nor that he impugns the atonement because he dissents from certain popular views of it.
II. Stephens demeanour.
1. He heard the calumnious charge. It is not hard to see what course natural feeling would take. In the first place there would be indignation; and then would come perplexity as soon as it became apparent that the charge was so worded that it could not be met with simple flat denial. With these feelings fear would mingle, and altogether painful discomposure and hesitation of mind would be produced which would communicate itself to the feelings of the accused. But in that exciting moment Stephen retained the most perfect serenity of spirit. When the accusation was advanced, every member of the court turned to see how the servant of Christ thus brought to bay would look. Greatly were they surprised, and for the moment disconcerted. This was no wan and haggard culprit; those features spoke of nothing but communion with the invisible God, of the love, joy, and peace which are the result of such communion (Act_6:15)--a lower grade of transfiguration. The Sanhedrin are momentarily cowed, as the devils agents are so often by the majesty of holy innocence. Possibly the radiance of Stephens countenance reminded them of the similar radiance on Moses face, the result of similar communion with God.
2. Could there have been any nearer approach than this to our Lords circumstances? He, too, had been apprehended with sudden violence; in His case false witnesses were suborned; His words, too, were twisted from their meaning, and finally His demeanour made His enemies quail. It may have been that this conformity to his Masters image was the secret of the supernatural joy that radiated from Stephens countenance.
Application:
1. Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you: do not consider it foreign to Christian experience. If the Captain of our salvation was made perfect through suffering, let not His soldiers claim exemption. Therefore, when the cross is placed upon us, let us rejoice in the resemblance between us and our Master, and in the prospect of perfect conformity which that resemblance guarantees.
2. Let the supernatural radiance of Stephens features, caught from the contemplation of his Master, remind us of the spiritual transfiguration which should be daily proceeding in ourselves. Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed, etc., and the secret of this is disclosed in We all, with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed, etc. (Dean Goulburn.)
Stephen before his accusers
I. The character of Stephen (Act_6:8).
1. He was full of grace and power. That was his spiritual condition. Not all power, so as to be stern, tyrannous, overwhelming, but power characterised by love, geniality, sympathy, gentleness. Not all grace, lest he should be mistaken as a mere sentimentalist, who contented himself with exquisite expressions, without seeking their realisation in the sterner qualities of character. Stephen was by so much a complete man.
2. He did great wonders and miracles among the people. That was his outer life. Mark the beautiful correspondence between the spiritual and the active. The one accounts for the other. With less of a spiritual quality there would have been less of social demonstration and influence. The wonder was not a trick of the hand; it was an expression of the deep spiritual history of the souls life. The miracle was not painted on a board; it flamed forth from an inner and sacred fire. This description of Stephen should be the description of the Christian man and the Christian Church. Not a line can be added to this picture. We do no wonders and miracles. Why? Because we have so little grace and power. We have looked at the wrong end of this business. We have been wanting more wonders and more miracles instead of looking into the inner condition of the heart. Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good.
II. His accusers.
1. They were controversial, they disputed with Stephen. Controversy is not Christianity. It is most difficult for any man to be both a debater and a Christian. So long as the Church was in the era of suffering, she had no time for debate. Her controversies were then fights for life. The Christian life is always a controversy; but we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, etc. Let us all beware of the spirit of controversy, which delights in the rearrangement of words and forgets that Christianity is a sacrifice, a life of obedience.
2. Being controversial, they were as necessarily unjust. They suborned men to tell lies. The aim of debate is not to secure truth, but to secure some petty triumph, or to carry out to its melancholy end some rooted prejudice, or some discreditable antipathy. This is my fear of some collateral institutions which are formed in Christian churches. There are limits within which debate may be conducted to high intellectual advantage; but whoever enters upon a course of debate merely as such, without having as a supreme view to knowing, loving, accepting, and obeying the truth, puts his spiritual life to a severe strain. You will always find behind intellectual hostility to Christianity an explanatory moral condition. A man who does not love the light will use any excuse for getting out of it.
Learn from this narrative--
1. The danger which often accrues to truth from its supposed friends. We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God. This is one of the earliest instances of heresy-hunting. Once for all, let us lay it down as an impossibility that bad men are judges of truth and falsehood. Men who had accepted a bribe came up to defend orthodoxy! No blind man is appointed as a judge of pictures, and no deaf man of music. But a bad man goes to church, and ventures upon an opinion as to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the preacher, and says, with intolerable impertinence, that he himself may not be what he ought to be, but he knows the truth when he hears it! What is your life? What is your spirit? What are your wonders and miracles? And what is the interior condition of heart which explains them? These are the questions that ought to be answered. Search into narrow, envenomed, and ignoble criticism in every age, and you will find that the men who speak most against blasphemy in doctrine are often the men who could not live otherwise than by telling lies.
2. The manner in which slander should be met. What was Stephens condition at the time? Hearing these lies, he will surely spring from his seat and indignantly deny the impeachment! Some men say they cannot sit still and hear false statements about themselves. If they were greater men they would learn the art of patience. Great bodies are calm. Stephen sat still, but his face gleamed like an angel. Could you have seen the other faces--with the significant leer, the harsh mouths--you would have known, without hearing the defence, who was right and who was wrong. Would that we could look more and say less!
3. The transfiguring power of Christianity. The face of Stephen shone like the face of an angel. This is typical of character. Whenever character is under the influence of Christian inspiration it shines. Ye are the light of the world. It is typical also of the resurrection, the last grand miracle that shall be performed upon these common bodies. The face once dull shall be lighted up with an inward light that shall transfigure it into nobility and gracious expressiveness. It doth not yet appear what we shall be. Christianity never takes hold of any man without making him a new creature, and without investing him with new beauty, nobility, and occasionally even splendour of expression. But whether this can take place in the body or not, it always takes place in the character, and the character determines the man.
4. We can all be full of faith or grace, and we can all do miracles and wonders. We have been too content to sit down under the impression that miracles have ceased. But what a wonder it would be, for example, if some of us ever helped a fellow-creature under any circumstances whatsoever! That wonder is possible to you. What a wonder it would be for some of us could we ever be met in a good humour! Wonders, miracles, signs! Why, the difficulty is to escape them! What a wonder it would be if some of us could be patient under suffering! You thought the age of wonders was passed, because the merely introductory signs have disappeared! The blossom is gone that the fruit may come. And we of these latter times are called to exhibit the wonder of a disciplined character, the marvel of a sanctified temper, the glittering phenomenon of a truly obedient sonship. (J. Parker, D. D.)
We have heard him speak blasphemous words.--
A false accusation with a semblance of truth
We get in these words, in this false accusation, even through its falsehood, a glimpse into the character of St. Stephens preaching. A false accusation need not be necessarily altogether false. In order to be effective for mischief, a twisted, distorted charge, with some basis of truth, is the best for the accusers purpose, and the most difficult for the defendant to answer. St. Stephen was ripening for heaven more rapidly than the apostles themselves. He was learning more rapidly than St. Peter himself the true spiritual meaning of the Christian scheme. He had taught, in no ambiguous language, the universal character of the gospel and the Catholic mission of the Church. And the narrow-minded Grecian Jews, anxious to vindicate their orthodoxy, which was doubted by their Hebrew brethren, distorted Stephens wider and grander conception into a charge of blasphemy against the holy man. What a picture of the future of Christs best and truest witnesses, especially when insisting on some nobler and wider or forgotten aspect of truth. Their teaching has been ever suspected, distorted, accused as blasphemous; and so it must ever be. And yet Gods servants, when they find themselves thus misrepresented, can realise to themselves that they are but following the course which the saints of every age have run, that they are being made like unto the image of Stephen, the first martyr, and of Jesus Christ Himself, the King of Saints, who suffered under a similar accusation. St, Pauls teaching was accused of tending to licentiousness; the earliest Christians were accused of vilest practices; St. Athanasius, in his struggles for truth, was accused of rebellion and murder; the Reformers were accused of lawlessness; John Wesley of Romanism and disloyalty; William Wilberforce of being an enemy to British trade; John Howard of being an encourager of crime and immorality. Let us be content, then, if our lot be with the saints, and our portion be that of the servants of the Most High. Again, we learn from this place how religious zeal can overthrow religion and work out the purposes of evil. Men cannot, indeed, now suborn men and bring fatal charges against them in matters of religion, and yet they can fall into exactly the same crime. Party religion and party zeal lead men into precisely the same causes as they did in the days of St. Stephen. Partisanship causes them to violate all the laws of honour, of honesty, of Christian charity, imagining that they are thereby advancing the cause of Christ, forgetting that they are acting on the rule which the Scriptures repudiate, doing evil that good may come, and striving to further Christs kingdom by a violation of His fundamental precepts. Oh, for more of the spirit of true charity, which will lead men to support their own views in a spirit of Christian love! Oh, for more of that true grasp of Christianity which will teach that a breach of Christian charity is far worse than any amount of speculative error! (G. T. Stokes, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v12 Chapter 15
Chapter 15
ST. STEPHENS DEFENCE AND THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.
Read full note →
Act_6:12-14; Act_7:1-2
ST. STEPHEN and St. Philip are the two prominent names among the primitive deacons. Stephen, however, much surpasses Philip. Devout expositors of Scripture have recognised in his name a prophecy of his greatness. Stephen is Stephanos, a garland or crown, in the Greek language. Garlands or crowns were given by the ancient Greeks to those who rendered good services to their cities, or brought fame to them by winning triumphs in the great national games. And Stephen had his name divinely chosen for him by that Divine Providence which ordereth all things, because he was to win in the fulness of time an imperishable garland, and to gain a crown of righteousness, and to render highest services to the Church of God by his teaching and by his testimony even unto death. St. Stephen had a Greek name, and must have belonged to the Hellenistic division of the Jewish nation. He evidently directed his special energies to their conversion, for while the previous persecutions had been raised by the Sadducees, as the persons whose prejudices had been assailed, the attack on Stephen was made by the Grecian Jews of the synagogues belonging to the Libertines or freedmen, in union with those from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. The Libertines had been slaves, Jewish captives, taken in the various wars waged by the Romans. They had been dispersed among the Romans at Rome and elsewhere. There in their captivity they had learned the Greek language and become acquainted with Greek culture; and now, when they had recovered their freedom through that suppleness and power of adaptation which the Jewish race has ever displayed, they returned to Jerusalem in such numbers that a synagogue of the Libertines was formed. Their captivity and servitude had, however, only intensified their religious feelings, and made them more jealous of any attempts to extend to the Gentiles who had held them captives the spiritual possessions they alone enjoyed. There is, indeed, an extremely interesting parallel to the case of the Libertines in early English history, as told by Bede. The Saxons came to England in the fifth century and conquered the Christian Celts, whom they drove into Wales. The Celts, however, avenged themselves upon their conquerors, for they refused to impart to the Pagan Saxons the glad tidings of salvation which the Celts possessed. But the Libertines were not the only assailants of St. Stephen. With them were joined members of synagogues connected with various other important Jewish centres. Jerusalem was then somewhat like Rome at the present time. It was the one city whither a race scattered all over the world and speaking every language tended. Each language was represented by a synagogue, just as there are English Colleges and Irish Colleges and Spanish Colleges at Rome, where Roman Catholics of those nationalities find themselves specially at home. Among these Hellenistic antagonists of St. Stephen we have mention made of the men of Cilicia. Here, doubtless, was found a certain Saul of Tarsus, enthusiastic in defence of the ancient faith, and urgent with all his might to bring to trial the apostate who had dared to speak words which he considered derogatory of the city and temple of the great king.
Saul, indeed, may have been the great agent in Stephens arrest. It is a nature and an intellect like his that can discern the logical results of teaching like St. Stephens, and then found an accusation upon the deductions he makes rather than upon the actual words spoken. Saul may have placed the Church under another obligation on this occasion. To him may be due the report of the speech made by Stephen before the Sanhedrin. Indeed, it is to St. Paul in his unconverted state we feel inclined to attribute the knowledge which St. Luke possessed of the earlier proceedings of the council in the matter of the Christians. After St. Pauls conversion we get no such details concerning the deliberations of the Sanhedrin as we do in the earlier chapters of the Acts, simply because Saul of Tarsus, the rising champion and hope of the Pharisees, was present at the earlier meetings and had access to their inmost secrets, while at the later meetings he never appeared save to stand his trial as an accused person. The question, How was Stephens speech preserved? has been asked by some critics who wished to decry the historic truth of this narrative, and to represent the whole thing as a fancy sketch or romance, worked up on historic lines indeed, but still only a romance, written many years after the events had happened. Critics who ask this forget what modern research has shown in another department. The "Acts" of the martyrs are sometimes very large documents, containing reports of charges, examinations, and speeches of considerable length. These have often been considered mere fancy history, the work of mediaeval monks wishing to celebrate the glory of these early witnesses for truth, and sceptical writers have often put them aside without bestowing even a passing notice upon them.
Modern investigation has taken these documents, critically investigated them, compared them with the Roman criminal law, and has come to the conclusion that they are genuine, affording some of the most interesting and important examples of ancient methods of legal procedure anywhere to be found. How did the Christians get these records? it may be asked. Various hints, given here and there, enable us to see. Bribery of the officials was sometimes used. The notaries, shorthand writers, and clerks attendant upon a Roman court were numerous, and were always accessible to the gifts of the richer Christians when they wished to obtain a correct narrative of a martyrs last trial. Secret Christians among the officials also effected something, and there were numerous other methods by which the Roman judicial records became the property of the Church, to be in time transmitted to the present age. Now just the same may have been the case with the trials of the primitive Christians, and specially of St. Stephen. But we know that St. Paul was there. Memory among the Jews was sharpened to an extraordinary degree. We have now no idea to what an extent human memory was then developed. The immense volumes which are filled with the Jewish commentaries on Scripture were in those times transmitted from generation to generatior, simply by means of this power. It was considered, indeed, a great innovation when those commentaries were committed to writing instead of being intrusted to tradition. It is no wonder then that St. Paul could afford his disciple, St. Luke, a report of what Stephen said on this occasion, even if he had not preserved any notes whatsoever of the process of the trial. Let us, however, turn to the consideration of St. Stephens speech, omitting any further notice of objections based on our own ignorance of the practices and methods of distant ages.
I. The defence of St. Stephen was a speech delivered by a Jew, and addressed to a Jewish audience. This is our first remark, and it is an important one. We are apt to judge the Scriptures, their speeches, arguments, and discussions, by a Western standard, forgetting that Orientals argued then and argue still not according to the rules of logic taught by Aristotle, nor by the methods of eloquence derived from the traditions of Cicero and Quinctilian, but by methods and rules essentially different. What would satisfy Westerns would have seemed to them utterly worthless, just as an argument which now seems pointless and weak appeared to them absolutely conclusive. Parallels, analogies, parables, mystical interpretations were then favourite methods of argument, and if we wish to understand writers like the authors of the scriptural books we must strive to place ourselves at their point of view, or else we shall miss their true interpretation. Let us apply this idea to St. Stephens defence, which has been often depreciated because treated as if it were an oration addressed to a Western court or audience. Erasmus, for instance, was an exceedingly learned man, who lived at the period of the Reformation. He was well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but knew nothing of Jewish. ideas. He hesitates not, therefore, to say in his Annotations on this passage that there are many things in Stephens speech which have no-bearing on the question at issue; while Michaelis, another German writer of great repute in the: earlier days of this century, remarks that there are many things in this oration of which we cannot perceive the tendency, as regards the accusation brought against the martyr. Let us examine and see if the case be not otherwise, remembering that promise of the Master, given not to supersede human exertion or to indulge human laziness, but given to support and sustain and safeguard His persecuted servants under circumstances like those amid which Stephen found himself. "But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." What, then, was the charge brought against Stephen? He was accused of "speaking blasphemous words against Moses, and against God," or, to put it in the formal language used by the witnesses, "We have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us." Now Stephen, if merely a man of common sense, must have intended to reply, to this indictment. Some critics, as we have just noted, think that he failed effectually to do so. We are indeed often in great danger of paying too much attention and lending too great weight to objections of this kind urged by persons who assume to themselves the office of critics; and to counteract this tendency perhaps it is as well to note that a leading German writer of a rationalistic type, named Zeller, who has written a work to decry the historical character of the Acts, finds in St. Stephens words an oration "not only characteristic, but also better suited to the case and to the accusation raised against him than is usually supposed."
Disregarding, then, all cavils of critics whose views are mutually destructive, let us see if we cannot discern in this narrative the marks of a sound and powerful mind, guided, aided, and directed by the Spirit of God which dwelt so abundantly in him. St. Stephen was accused of irreverence towards Moses and hostility towards the temple, and towards all the Jewish institutions. How did he meet this? He begins his address to the Sanhedrin at the earliest period of their national history, and shows how the chosen people had passed through many changes and developments without interfering with their essential identity amid these changes. His opponents now made idols of their local institutions and of the buildings of the temple, but Gods choice and Gods promise had originally nothing local about them at all. Abraham, their great father, was first called by God in Ur of the Chaldees, far away across the desert in distant Mesopotamia. Thence he removed to Charran, and then, only after the lapse of years, became a wanderer up and down in Canaan, where he never possessed so much of the land as he could set his foot upon. The promises of God and the covenant of grace were personal things, made to Gods chosen children, not connected with lands or buildings or national customs. He next takes up the case of Moses. He had been accused of blasphemy and irreverence towards the great national law-giver. His words prove that he entertained no such feelings; he respected and revered Moses just as much as his opponents and accusers did. But Moses had nothing to say or do with Canaan, or Jerusalem, or the temple. Nay, rather, his work for the chosen people was alone in Egypt and in Midian and on the side of Horeb, where the presence and name of Jehovah were manifested not in the temple or tabernacle, but in the bush burning yet not consumed.
The Grecian Jews accused Stephen of irreverence towards Moses. But how had their forefathers treated that Moses whom he recognised as a divinely-sent messenger? "They thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt." Moses, however, led them onward and upward. His motto was hope. His rod and his voice ever pointed forward. He warned them that his own ministry was not the final one; that it was only an intermediate and temporary institution, till the prophet should come unto whom the people should hearken. There was a chosen people before the customs introduced by Moses. There may therefore be a chosen people still when these customs cease, having fulfilled their purpose. The argument of St. Stephen in this passage is the same as that of St. Paul in the fourth-chapter of Galatians, where he sets forth the temporary and intermediate character of the Levitical law and of the covenant of circumcision. So teaches St. Stephen in his speech. His argument is simply this:-I have been accused of speaking blasphemous words against Moses because I proclaimed that a greater Prophet than he had come, and yet this was only what Moses himself had foretold. It is not I who have blasphemed and opposed Moses: it is my accusers rather. But then he remembers that the accusation dealt not merely with Moses. It went farther, and accused him of speaking blasphemous words against the national sanctuary, "saying that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place."
This leads him to speak of the temple. His argument now takes a different turn, and runs thus. This building is now the centre of Jewish thoughts and affections. But it is a mere modern thing, as compared with the original choice and promise of God. There was no chosen dwelling-place of the Almighty in the earliest days of all; His presence was then manifested wherever His chosen servants dwelt. Then Moses made a tent or tabernacle, which abode in no certain spot, but moved hither and thither. Last of all, long after Abraham, and long after Moses, and even after David, Solomon built God a house. Even when it was built, and in all its original glory, even then the temporary character of the temple was clearly recognised by the prophet Isaiah, who had long ago, in his sixty-sixth chapter, proclaimed the truth which had been brought forward as an accusation against himself: "Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool; what house will ye build Me, saith the Lord, or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things?"-a great spiritual truth which had been anticipated long before Isaiah by King Solomon, in his famous dedication prayer at the opening of the temple: "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded." {1Ki_8:27} After St. Stephen had set forth this undeniable truth confirmed by the words of Isaiah, which to the Pharisaic portion of his audience, at least, must have seemed conclusive, there occurs a break in the address.
One would have thought that he would then have proceeded to describe the broader and more spiritual life which had shone forth for mankind in Christ, and to expound the freedom from all local restrictions which should henceforth belong to acceptable worship of the Most High. Most certainly, if the speech had been invented for him and placed in his mouth, a forger would naturally have designed a fuller and more balanced discourse, setting forth the doctrine of Christ as well as the past history of the Jews. We cannot tell whether he actually entered more fully into the subject or not. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of St. Stephens doctrine. Isaiahs opinion carried no weight with them as contrasted with the institutions of Moses, which were their pride and glory; and so, borne along by the force of his oratory, St. Stephen finished with that vigorous denunciation which led to his death: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." This exposition of St. Stephens speech will show the drift and argument of it as it appears to us. But it must have seemed to them much more powerful, plain-spoken, and aggressive. He vindicated himself to any right-thinking and fair mind from the accusation of irreverence towards God, towards Moses, or towards the Divine institutions. But the minds of his hearers were not fair. He had trampled upon their prejudices, he had suggested the vanity of their dearest ideas, and they could not estimate his reasons or follow his arguments, but they could resort to the remedy which every failing, though for the present popular, cause possesses-they could destroy him. And thus they treated the modern as their ancestors had treated the ancient prophets. What a lesson Stephens speech has for the Church of every age! How wide and manifold the applications of it! The Jewish error is one that is often committed, their mistake often repeated. The Jews identified Gods honour and glory with an old order that was fast passing away, and had no eyes to behold a new and more glorious order that was opening upon them. We may blame them then for their murder of St. Stephen, but we must blame them gently, feeling that they acted as human nature has ever acted under similar circumstances, and that good motives were mingled with those feelings of rage and bigotry and narrowness that urged them to their deed of blood. Let us see how this was. Stephen proclaimed a new order and a new development, embracing for his hearers a vast political as well as a vast religious change. His forecast of the future swept away at once all the privileges and profits connected with the religious position of Jerusalem, and thus destroyed the political prospects of the Jewish people. It is no wonder the Sanhedrin could not appreciate his oration. Men do not ever listen patiently when their pockets are being touched, their profits swept away, their dearest hopes utterly annihilated. Has not human experience often repeated the scene acted out that day in Jerusalem? On the political stage men have often seen it, -we ourselves have seen it. The advocates of liberty, civil and religious, have had to struggle against the same spirit and the same prejudices as St. Stephen. Take the political world alone. We now look back and view with horror the deeds wrought in the name of authority and in opposition to the principles of change and innovation. We read the stories of Alva and the massacres in the Netherlands, the bloody deeds of the seventeenth century in England and all over Europe, the miseries and the bloodshed of the American war of independence, the fierce opposition with which the spirit of liberty has been resisted throughout this century; and our sympathies are altogether ranged on the side of the sufferers, -the losers and defeated, it may have been, for the time, but the triumphant in the long run.
The true student, however, of history or of human nature will not content himself with any one-sided view, and he will have some sympathy to spare for those who adopted the stern measures. He will not judge them too harshly. They reverenced the past as the Jews of Jerusalem did, and reverence is a feeling that is right and blessed. It is no good sign for this age of ours that it possesses so little reverence for the past, thinks so lightly of the institutions, the wisdom, the ideas of antiquity, and is ready to change them at a moments notice. The men who now are held up to the execration of posterity, the high priest and the Sanhedrin who murdered Stephen, the tyrants and despots and their agents who strove to crush the supporters of liberty, the writers who cried them down and applauded or urged on the violent measures which were adopted and sometimes triumphed for the time, -we should strive to put ourselves in their position, and see what they had to say for themselves, and thus seek to judge them here below as the Eternal King will judge them at the great final tribunal. They knew the good which the old political institutions had worked. They had lived and flourished under them as their ancestors had lived and flourished before them. The future they knew not. All they knew was that changes were proposed which threatened everything with which their dearest memories were bound up, and the innovators seemed dangerous creatures, obnoxious to God and man, and they dealt with them accordingly.
So it has been and still is in politics. The opponents of political change are sometimes denounced in the fiercest language, as if they were morally wicked. The late Dr. Arnold seems a grievous offender in this respect. No one can read his charming biography by Dean Stanley without recognising how intolerant he was towards his political opponents; how blind he was to those good motives which inspire the timorous, the ignorant, and the aged, when brought face to face with changes which appear to them thickly charged with the most dangerous results. Charity towards opponents is sadly needed in the political as well as in the religious world. And as it has been in politics so has it been in religion. Men reverence the past, and that reverence easily glides into an idolatry blind to its defects and hostile to any improvement. It is in religion too as in politics; a thousand other interests-money, office, expectations, memories of the loved and lost - are bound up with old religious forms, and then when the prophet arises with his Divine message, as Stephen arose before the Sanhedrin, the ancient proverb is fulfilled, the corruption of the best becomes the worst, the good motives mingle with the evil, and are used by the poor human heart to justify the harshest, most unchristian deeds done in defence of what men believe to he the cause of truth and righteousness. Let us be just and fair to the aggressors as well as to the aggrieved, to the persecutors as well as to the persecuted. But let us all the same take good heed to learn for ourselves the lessons this narrative presents. Reverence is a good thing, and a blessed thing; and without reverence no true progress, either in political or spiritual things, can be made. But reverence easily degenerates into blind superstitious idolatry. It was so with the Sanhedrin, it was so at the Reformation, it has ever been so with the opponents of true religious progress. Let us evermore strive to keep minds free, open, unbiassed, respecting the past, yet ready to listen to the voice and fresh revelations of Gods will and purposes made to us by the messengers whom He chooses as He pleases. Perhaps there was never an age which needed this lesson of Stephens speech and its reception more than our own. The attitude of religious men towards science and its numerous and wondrous advances needs guidance such as this incident affords. The Sanhedrin had their own theory and interpretation of Gods dealings in the past. They clung to it passionately, and refused the teaching of Stephen, who would have widened their views, and shown them that a grand and noble development was quite in accordance with all the facts in the case, and indeed a necessary result of the sacred history when truly expounded! What a parable and picture of the future we here find! What a warning as to the attitude religious men should take up with respect to the progress of science! Patience, intellectual and religious patience, is taught us. The Sanhedrin were impatient of St. Stephens views, which they could not understand, and their impatience made them lose a blessing and commit a sin. Now has it not been at times much the same with ourselves? Fifty or sixty years ago men were frightened at the revelations of geology, -they had their own interpretations of the past and of the Scriptures, -just as three centuries ago men were frightened at the revelations and teaching of modern astronomy. Prejudiced and narrow men then strove to hound down the teachers of the new science, and would, if they could, have destroyed them in the name of God. Patience, here, however, has done its work and has had its reward. The new revelations have been taken up and absorbed by the Church of Christ. Men have learned to distinguish between their own interpretations of religion and of religious documents on the one hand and the religion itself on the other. The old, human, narrow, prejudiced interpretations have been modified. That which could be shaken and was untrue has passed away, while that which cannot be shaken has remained.
The lesson taught us by these instances of astronomy and geology, ought not to be thrown away. Patience is again necessary for the Christian and for the scientist alike. New facts are every day coming to light, but it requires much time and thought to bring new facts and old truths into their due correlation, to look round and about them. The human mind is at best very small and weak. It is blind, and cannot see afar off, and it is only by degrees it can grasp truth in its fulness. A new fact, for instance, discovered by science may appear at first plainly contradictory to some old truth revealed in Scripture. But even so, we should not lose our patience or our hope taught us by this chapter. What new fact of science can possibly seem more contradictory to any old truth of the Creeds than St. Stephens teaching about the universal character of Gods promise and the freeness of acceptable worship must have seemed when compared with the Divine choice of the temple at Jerusalem? They appeared to the Sanhedrins ideas mutually destructive, though now we see them to have been quite consistent one with another. Let this historic retrospect support us when our faith is tried. Let us welcome every new fact and new revelation brought by science, and then, if they seem opposed to something we know to be true in religion, let us wait in confidence, begotten of past experience, that God in His own good time will clear up for His faithful people that which now seems difficult of comprehension. Patience and confidence, then, are two lessons much needed in this age, which St. Stephens speech and its reception bring home to our hearts.
II. We have now spoken of the general aspect of the discourse, and the broad counsels we may gather from it. There are some other points, however, points of detail as distinguished from wider views, upon which we would fix our attention. They too will be found full of guidance and full of instruction. Let us take them in the order in which they appear in St. Stephens address. The mistakes and variations which undoubtedly occur in it are well worthy of careful attention, and have much teaching necessary for these times. There are three points in which Stephen varies from the language of the Old Testament. In the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter Stephen speaks thus: "Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls"; while, if we turn to the Pentateuch, we shall find that the number of the original Hebrew immigrants is placed three times over at seventy, or threescore and ten, that is in Gen_46:2; Gen_46:7, Exo_1:5, and Deu_10:22. This, however, is only a comparatively minor point. The Septuagintor Greek version of the Pentateuch reads seventy-five in the first of these passages, making the sons of Joseph born in Egypt to have been nine persons, and thus completing the number seventy-five, at which it fixes the roll of the males who came with Jacob. The next two verses, the fifteenth and sixteenth, contain a much more serious mistake. They run thus:-"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were caried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Em-mot the father of Sychem." Now here there occur several grave errors. Jacob was not carried over and buried at Sychem at all, but at the cave of Machpelah, as is plainly stated in Gen_50:13. Again, a plot of ground at Sychem was certainly bought, not by Abraham, however, but by Jacob. Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite. Jacob bought his plot at Sychem from the sons of Emmor. There are in these verses, then, two serious historical mistakes; first as to the true burial-place of Jacob, and then as to the purchaser of the plot of ground at Sychem. Yet, again, there is a third mistake in the forty-third verse, where, when quoting a denunciation of Jewish idolatry from Amo_5:25-26, he quotes the prophet as threatening, "I will carry you away beyond Babylon," whereas the prophet did say, "Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus." St. Stephen substituted Babylon for Damascus, two cities between which several hundred miles intervened. I have stated the difficulty thus as strongly as possible, because I think that, instead of constituting a difficulty, they are a real source of living help and comfort, as well as a great practical confirmation of the story. Let us take this last point first. I say that these mistakes, admitted mistakes which I make no vain attempt to explain away, constitute a confirmation of the story as given in the Acts against modern rationalistic opponents. It is a favourite theme of many of these writers that the Acts of the Apostles is a mere piece of fancy history, a historical romance composed in the second century for the purpose of reconciling the adherents of St. Paul, or the Gentile Christians, with the followers of St. Peter, or the Jewish Christians.; The persons who uphold this view fix the date of the Acts in the earlier half of the second century, and teach that the speeches and addresses were composed by the author of the book and put into the mouths of the reputed speakers. Now, in the mistake made by St. Stephen, we have a refutation of this theory. Surely any man composing a speech to put into the mouth of one of his favourite heroes and champions would not have represented him as making such grave errors when addressing the supreme Jewish senate. A man might easily make any of these slips which I have noticed in the heat of an oration, and they might have even passed unnoticed, as every speaker who has much practice in addressing the public still makes precisely the same kind of mistake. But a romancer, sitting down to forge speeches suitable to the time and place, would never have put in the mouth of his lay figures grave errors about the most elementary facts of Jewish history. We conclude, then, that the inaccuracies reported as made by St. Stephen are evidences of the genuine character of the oration attributed to him. Then again we see in these mistakes a guarantee of the honesty and accuracy of the reports of the speech. The other day I read the objections of a critic to our Gospels. He wished to know, for instance, how the addresses of our Lord could have been preserved in an age when there was no shorthand. The answer is, however, simple enough, and conclusive: there was shorthand in that age. Shorthand was then carried to such perfection that an epigram of Martial (14:208), a contemporary poet, celebrating its triumphs may be thus translated:-
"Swift though the words, the pen still swifter sped; The hand has finished ere the tongue has said."
While even if the Jews knew nothing of shorthand, the human memory, as we have already noted, was then developed to a degree of which we have no conception. Now, whether transmitted by memory or by notes, this address of St. Stephen bears proofs of the truthfulness of the reporter in the mistakes it contains. A man anxious for the reputation of his hero would have corrected them, as parliamentary reporters are accustomed to make the worst speeches readable, correcting evident blunders, and improving the grammar. The reporter of St. Stephens words, on the contrary, gave them to us just as they were spoken. But then, I may be asked, how do you account for St. Stephens mistake? What explanation can you offer? My answer is simple and plain enough. I have no other explanation to offer except that they are mistakes such as a speaker, filled with his subject, and speaking to an excited and hostile audience, might naturally make; mistakes such as truthful speakers every day make in their ordinary efforts. Every man who speaks an extemporaneous discourse such as Stephens was, full of references to past history, is liable to such errors. Even when the memory retains the facts most accurately, the tongue is apt to make such lapses. Let a number of names be mingled up together in a speech or sermon where frequent mention has to be made of one now and of another again, how easily in that case a speaker substitutes one for another. But it may be objected that it is declared of Stephen that he was "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," that "he was full of faith and power," and that his adversaries "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake." But surely this might be said of able, devoted, and holy men at the present day, and yet no one would say that they were miraculously kept from the most trivial mistakes, and that their memories and tongues were so supernaturally aided that they were preserved from the smallest verbal inaccuracies. We are always inclined to reverse the true scientific method of inquiry, and to form notions as to what inspiration must mean, instead of asking what, as a matter of fact, inspiration did mean and involve in the case of the Bible heroes. People when they feel offended by these mistakes of St. Stephen prove that they really think that Christianity was quite a different thing in the apostolic days from what it is now, and that the words "full of the Holy Ghost" and the presence of the Divine Spirit meant quite a different gift and blessing then from what they imply at the present time. I look upon the mistakes in this speech in quite a different light. St. Luke, in recording them exactly as they took place, proves, not merely his honesty as a narrator, but he also has handed down to us a most important lesson. He teaches us to moderate our notions and to hasten our a priori expectations. He shows us we must come and study the Scriptures to learn what they mean by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit. St. Luke expressly tells us that Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and then proceeds to narrate certain verbal inaccuracies and certain slips of memory to prove to us that the presence of the Holy Ghost does not annihilate human nature, or supersede the exercise of the human faculties. Just as in other places we find Apostles like St. Peter or St. Paul spoken of as equally inspired, and yet the inspiration enjoyed by them did not destroy their human weakness and infirmities, and, full of the Holy Ghost as they were, St. Paul could wax wroth and engage in bitter dissension with Barnabas, his fellow-labourer; and St. Peter could fall into hypocrisy against which his brother Apostle had publicly to protest. It is wonderful how liable the mind is, m matters of religion, to embrace exactly the same errors age after age, manifesting themselves in different shapes. Men are ever inclined to form their theories beforehand, and then to test Gods actions and the course of His Providence by those theories, instead of reversing the order, and testing their theories by facts as God reveals them. This error about the true theory of inspiration and the gifts of the Holy Ghost which Protestants have fallen into is exactly the same as two celebrated mistakes, one in ancient, the other in modern times. The Eutychian heresy was very celebrated in the fifth century. It split the Eastern Church into two parts, and prepared the way for the triumph of Mahometanism. It fell, too, into this same error. It formed a a priori theory of God and His nature. It determined that it was impossible for the nature of Deity to be united to a nature which could feel hunger and thirst and weakness, because that God cannot be affected by any human weakness or wants. It denied, therefore, the real humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the reality of His human life and actions; teaching that His human body was not real, but merely a phenomenal or apparent one, and then explaining away all the statements and facts of Gospel history which seemed to them to conflict with their own private theory. In the West we have had ourselves experience of the same erroneous method of argument. The adherents of the Church of Rome argue for the infallibility of the Pope in the same way. They dilate on the awful importance of religious truth, and the fearful consequences of a mistake in such matters. Hence they conclude that it is only natural and fitting that a living, speaking, teaching, infallible guide should be appointed by God to direct the Church, and thence they conclude the infallibility of the Pope; a method of argument which has been amply exposed by Dr. Salmon in his work on the Infallibility of the Church. The Roman Catholics form their theory first, and when they come to facts which conflict with their theory, they deny them or explain them away in the most extraordinary manner.
Protestants themselves, however, are subject to the same erroneous methods. They form a theory about the Holy Ghost and His operations. They conclude, as is true, that He is Himself right and just and true in all His doings, and then they conclude that all the men whom He chose in the earliest age of the Church, and who are mentioned in Scripture as endued with His grace, must have been as free from every form of error as the Holy Spirit Himself. They thus fashion for themselves a mere a priori theory like the Eutychian and the Romanist, and then, when they apply their theory to passages like St. Stephens speech, they feel compelled to deny facts and offer forced explanations, and to reject Gods teaching as it is embodied in the divinely taught lessons of history. Let us be honest, fearless students of the Scriptures. St. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and as such his great, broad, spiritual lessons were taught by the Spirit, and commend themselves as Divine teaching to every Christian heart. But these lessons were given through human lips, and had to be conveyed through human faculties, and as such are not free from the imperfections which attach themselves to everything human here below. Surely it is just the same still. God the Holy Ghost dwells with His people as of old. There are men, even in this age, of whom it still may be said, that in a special sense "they are full of the Holy Ghost," a blessing granted in answer to faithful prayer and devout communion and a life lived closely with God. The Holy Spirit speaks through them and in them. Their sermons, even on the simplest topics, speak with power, they teem with spiritual unction, they come home with conviction to the human conscience. Yet surely no one would dream of saying that these men are free from slips of speech and lapses of memory in their extemporaneous addresses, or in their private instructions, or in their written letters, because the Holy Ghost thus proves His presence and His power in His people as of old. The human heart and conscience easily and at once distinguish between that which is due to human weakness and what to Divine grace, according to that most pregnant saying of an Apostle himself gifted above all others, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." This view may be startling to some persons who have been accustomed to look to the Bible as some persons look to the Pope, as an oracle which will give them infallible guidance on every topic without the exercise of any thought or intelligence on their own part. Yet it is no original or novel notion of my own, but one that has been luminously set forth by a devout expositor of Scripture, dealing with this very passage many years ago. Dr. Vaughan, in his lectures on the Acts, preaching at Doncaster when vicar of that place, thus states his conclusions on this point:-"Now I will address one earnest word to persons who may have noticed with anxiety in this chapter, or who may have heard it noticed by others in a tone of cavil or disbelief, that in one or two minor points the account here given of Jewish history seems to vary from that contained in the narrative of the Old Testament. For example, the history of the book of Genesis tells us that the burying-place bought by Abraham was in Mamre or Hebron, not at Sychem; and that it was bought by him of Ephron the Hittite, Jacob (not Abraham) being the purchaser of the ground at Shechem of the sons of Hamor, Shechems father. My friends, can you really suppose that a difference of this nature has anything to do, this way or that, with the substantial truth of the gospel revelation? I declare to you that I would not waste the time in endeavouring (if I was able) to reconcile such a variance. It is to be regretted that Christian persons, in their zeal for the literal accuracy of our Holy Book, have spoken and written as if they thought that anything could possibly depend upon such a question. We all know how easy it is to get two witnesses in a court of justice to give their stories of an occurrence in the same words. We know also how instant is the suspicion of falsehood which that formal coincidence of statement brings upon them. Holy Scripture shows what I may indeed call a noble superiority to all such uniformity. Each book of our Bible is an independent witness; shown to be so, not least, by verbal or even actual differences on some trifling points of detail. And they who drink most deeply at the fountain head of Divine truth learn to estimate these things in the same manner; to feel what we might describe as a lordly disdain for all infidel objections drawn from this sort of petty, paltry, cavilling, carping, creeping criticism. Let our faith at last, God helping us, be strong enough and decided enough to override a few or a multitude of such objections. We will hear them unmoved; we will fearlessly examine them; if we cannot resolve them, then, in the power of a more majestic principle, we will calmly turn from them and pass them by. What we know not now, we may know hereafter; and if we never know we will believe still." These are wise words, very wholesome, very practical, and very helpful in this present age.
III. Let us briefly gather yet another lesson from this passage. The declaration of the Churchs catholicity and the universal nature of Christian worship contained in verses 47-50 {Act_7:47-50} deserve our attention. What did St. Stephen say?-"But Solomon built Him a house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet, The heaven is My throne, and the earth the footstool of My feet; what manner of house will ye build Me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of My rest? Did not My hand make all these things?" These words must have sounded as very extraordinary and very revolutionary in Jewish ears, because they most certainly struck at the root of the exclusive privilege claimed for Jerusalem, that it was the one place upon earth where acceptable worship could be offered, and where the Divine presence could be manifested. It seems no wonder that they should have aroused the Sanhedrin to the pitch of fury which ended in the orators judicial murder. But these words have been at times pressed farther than Stephen intended. He merely wished to teach that Gods special and covenanted presence was not for the future to be limited to Jerusalem. In the new dispensation of the Messiah whom he preached, that special covenanted presence would be found everywhere. Where two or three should be gathered in Christs name there would Gods presence be found. These words of Stephen have sometimes been quoted as if they sounded the death-knell of special places dedicated to the honour and glory of God, such as churches are. It is evident, however, that they have no such application. They sounded the death-knell of the exclusive privilege of one place, the temple, but they proclaimed the freedom which the Church has ever since claimed, and the Jewish Church of the dispersion, by the institution of synagogues, had led the way in claiming; teaching that wherever true hearts and true worshippers are found, there God reveals Himself. But we must bear in mind a distinction. Stephen and the Apostles rejected the exclusive right of the Temple as the one place of worship for the world. They asserted the right to establish special places of worship throughout the world. They rejected the exclusive claims of Jerusalem. But they did not reject the right and the duty of Gods people to assemble themselves as a collective body for public worship, and to realise Christs covenanted presence. This is an important limitation of St. Stephens statement. The absolute duty of public collective worship of the Almighty cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Men neglect it, and they support themselves by an appeal to St. Stephens words, which have nothing to do with public worship more than with private worship. The Jews imagined that both public and private worship offered in the Temple had some special blessing attached, because a special presence of God was there granted. St. Stephen attacked this prejudice. His words must, however, be limited to the exact point he was then dealing with, and must not be pressed farther. Private prayer was binding on all Gods people in the new and freer dispensation, and so, too, public worship has a special covenant blessing attached to it, and the blessing cannot be obtained if people neglect the duty. Public worship has been by Protestants looked at too much, as if it were only a means of their own edification, and thus, when they have thought that such edification could be as well or better attained at home, by reading a better sermon than they might chance to hear in the public congregation, they have excused their absence to their own conscience. But public worship is much more than a means of edification. It is the payment of a debt of worship, praise, and adoration due by the creature to the Creator. In that duty personal edification finds a place, but a mere accidental and subsidiary place. The great end of public worship is worship, not hearing, not edification even, though edification follows as a necessary result of such public worship when sincerely offered. The teaching of St. Stephen did not then apply to the erection of churches and buildings set apart for Gods service, or to the claim made for public worship as an exercise with a peculiar Divine promise annexed. It simply protests against any attempt to localise the Divine presence to one special spot on earth, making it and it alone the centre of all religious interest. St. Stephens words are indeed but a necessary result of the ascension of Christ as we have already expounded its expediency. Had Christ remained on earth, His personal presence would have rendered the Church a mere local and not a universal institution; just as the doctrine of Roman Catholics about the Pope as Christs Vicar, and Rome as his appointed seat, has so far invested Rome with somewhat of the characteristics of Jerusalem and the Temple. But our Lord ascended up on high that the hearts and minds of His people might likewise ascend to that region where, above time and sense and change, their Master evermore dwells, as the loadstone which secretly draws their hearts, and guides their tempest tossed spirits across the stormy waters of this world to the haven of everlasting rest.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv11, 12, 13, 15 11. They suborned men. Induced men to give perverted…
11. They suborned men. Induced men to give perverted testimony. They determined to silence Stephen. Heard him speak blasphemous words. This was the charge against Christ. It is likely that, like Paul, he plainly preached that the Old Covenant had given place to the New, and that God's people were no longer under Moses, but under Christ. This was perverted into blaspheming Moses.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v15 15. “And all who were sitting in the Sanhedrin,…
15. “And all who were sitting in the Sanhedrin, looking upon him, saw his countenance as the face of an angel.” Now, remember, that the popular preachers, standing at the head of the churches, persecute Stephen unto death. Why did they not desist when they see the very glory of God radiant in his countenance? The solution is very simple, they did not have the discernment of the Holy Ghost, hence they mistook the very glory of heaven radiant from his countenance for his own mean, stubborn, self- willed, contrary spirit, which convinced them the more that he deserved to die for disloyalty to the church.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv11–15 11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in…
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.
Read full note →
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.
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v15 (See Scofield "Heb 1:4").
angel
(See Scofield "Heb 1:4").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v12 General Information:
General Information:
Each use of word "they" most likely refers back to the people from the synagogue of the Freedmen in Acts 6:9. They were responsible for the false witnesses and for inciting the council, the elders, the scribes, and the other people.
Read full note →
General Information:
Here the word "we" refers only to the false witness that they brought to testify. (See: Exclusive and Inclusive "We")
stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes
"caused the people, the elders, and the scribes to be very angry at Stephen"
seized him
"grabbed him and held him so he could not get away"
does not stop speaking
"continually speaks"
handed down to us
The phrase "handed down" means "passed on." AT: "taught our ancestors" (See: Idiom and Metonymy)
fixed their eyes on him
This is an idiom that means they looked intently at him. Here "eyes" is a metonym for sight. AT: "looked intently at him" or "stared at him" (See: Idiom)
was like the face of an angel
This phrase compares his face to that of an angel but does not say specifically what they have in common. (See: Simile)
translationWords
elder
scribe
Stephen
council
testimony
holy place
law
Jesus
Nazareth
Moses
angel
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v15 6:15 His face became as bright as an angel’s,…
6:15 His face became as bright as an angel’s, just as Moses’ face had (6:14; see Exod 34:32-35). Stephen, like Moses, was bringing God’s instruction to Israel (see also 2 Cor 3:7-18).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.