But in those days, the disciples multiplying in number, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews because their widows were overlooked in the daily ministration.
The church in Jerusalem was growing fast. Then came the first quarrel inside it — not an attack from outside, but one group of believers complaining about another over the daily care of widows. Who were these two groups? Was anyone really neglected? And why did the first trouble among Christians start over food and widows?
Persecution came from outside the church. This trouble came from inside it, and one writer says which is the greater danger.
Persecution of the Christian for Christ's sake is an honour from God (Phil. 1:29), and grace makes it a blessing to the church and a testimony to the world. The real danger is from within. It is greater still when the confidence of love gives way, to any great extent, to an evil eye and a discontented tongue. And so it was now.
Another writer sets the growing church of Acts beside the crowded earth of Genesis 6.
Scripture ties the multiplying of men on the face of the earth to all this corruption — just as in the history of the church. Acts 6:1. Murmurings and disputes began to arise when the number of disciples multiplied. These matching cases in Genesis 6 and Acts 6 tell us that man is never to be trusted, and that the more we get of him the worse things are.
The two names in the verse are often misunderstood. One writer explains who the Grecians were, and what the murmuring showed.
The same old thing, the unchanging flesh, shows itself among the saved and united company of believers, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The murmurings were on the side of the Grecians. Their complaint was against the Hebrews, that the Grecian widows were being overlooked. The Grecians were not, as some teach, Gentiles. They were Greek-speaking Jews, born in countries outside Palestine. That is why they were called Hellenists, or Grecians.
The "daily distribution" was the relief fund of a poor church. That fund is where the trouble began.
Poverty was from the outset a marked feature of the church in Jerusalem. To relieve it, the church kept up its daily ministry to the poor. Through this the enemy now sought to work and to sow division among the converts. A cry went up that the widows of the Grecian Jews were neglected in favour of the native-born Hebrews.
One writer weighs the wording of the verse closely.
"Their widows," they alleged, were being overlooked in the daily supply of needs. We are not told that this was really so, but that this is what they complained of. The poor "widows" are always remembered by God. The mouth of murmurers should be stopped, if the allegation were false.
The complaint also had a history behind it.
It does not say they were neglected, but that this was claimed. In fact, although grace was dominant over it here, there was always a certain jealousy existing between these two classes. You would expect the jealousy on the side of the Hebrews. Here it was on the side of the Hellenists — perhaps a reaction to knowing that such a spirit generally existed, which would give rise to the suspicions we actually see now.
A quarrel about food can look like a small matter. One writer refuses to treat it that way.
We cannot read further than the sixth chapter of Acts without finding the first symptoms of a disease. That disease has since grown into a raging and destructive epidemic. A murmuring arose among the Jewish converts to Christianity, because certain Greek-speaking widows were neglected compared with their Hebrew sisters. It might have seemed a small thing. In reality it meant a great deal.
The apostles did not argue the complaint down. Look at who they put in charge.
Here was an apparent difference of interests. The Spirit of God, through the apostles, corrected the trouble at once... So men appointed by God take charge of the whole matter of practical care. From their names it would seem they were all foreign Jews — the very class the complaint had come from. They took into the circle of divine love and care every needy saint, whether foreign or home-born. So the threatened trouble was averted.
- Growth. The trouble comes as the disciples multiply. Growth brought out what was already in the human heart.
- Grievance. Greek-speaking Jewish believers, not Gentiles, complained against the native-born Hebrews. The issue was the daily relief of widows.
- Guesswork. Scripture records the claim, not proof of it. Old suspicion ran between the two groups. And God never forgets widows.
- Gravity. A dispute over the widows' food was the first symptom of a disease that later spread far and wide.
- Grace. The men put over the fund seem to come from the complaining side. The answer to murmuring was to trust the murmurers with the care of everyone.
And the twelve, having called the multitude of the disciples to [them], said, It is not right that we, leaving the word of God, should serve tables.
The church in Jerusalem was growing fast, and Greek-speaking believers complained that their widows were missing out on the daily food. The twelve apostles called everyone together and refused to leave preaching for the tables.
This was the first crack in the young church, and jealousy was behind it.
The flesh showed itself in murmuring... Murmurings arose out of jealousy, the result of unbelief. It is the first indication of weakness and failure. This reminds us of the murmurings of Israel as recorded in the book of Exodus. The same old thing, the flesh that never changes, shows itself among the saved and united company of believers, in whom the Holy Spirit lives. The murmurings were on the side of the Grecians... The Grecians were not Gentiles, as some teach. They were Greek-speaking Jews, born in countries outside Palestine, and so were called Hellenists.
The apostles did not let the grumble grow. One writer sees who was behind it:
It was only a "murmuring" that arose, but the apostles did not wait for it to become a formidable outcry. They discerned that Satan's object in it was to divert them from the preaching of the Word to social service, so they took steps to end any possible objections.
The words "it is not right" say more than "we would rather not." The danger was that the tables would take over their whole ministry.
The money came from the disciples, so the apostles told them to choose men they could trust. But the apostles, acting for the Lord in good order, put those men over the work. It was not fitting or proper (the word used here allows a wider sense than the narrow one of "pleasing", or "our pleasure") that they should give up the word of God to serve tables. If they had carried on with that work, that is where it would have ended. In this way loving wisdom turns ungrateful complaints to good... Where the Lord gives, He chooses, as for all ministry in the word; where the assembly gives, they choose, as in this case.
The seven had a real job, but not the same one as the ministry of the word. Two of them went further.
They serve tables in contrast with the ministry of the word... they are appointed to quite another business, in contrast with the minister of the word. Two of them, to use Paul's language, gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in Christ Jesus. Out of their own zeal they set about serving in the synagogues and elsewhere. Philip goes to Samaria, giving up as a result his office — "this business" — at Jerusalem... That is, deacons were put over everyday matters so that others might be free to minister the word.
The whole company picked the men. One writer ties that to whose money it was.
In this business the church was to select its own officers; but then the business was the distribution of the funds and food that the church had itself provided. We never read that the church was asked to select or appoint its elders, overseers, or ministers of the Word. The grace and gifts they pass on do not come from the church but from God.
The same caution about money reappears later in Paul's own practice:
The preaching of the word is separated from the care of the poor. In this case the apostles wanted the people to choose those who might care for the widows. We shall see later on that the apostle Paul himself, with Barnabas, appointed elders. But when it was a question of money, neither the twelve nor Paul would take any part in it. They would not mix the divine service of the word with the handling of the money the believers gave.
The twelve kept two things: prayer and the ministry of the word. One writer notes that the order changes with the person.
So the apostles continued to give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. For those who are taught, the Word comes first, because we pray rightly only as the Word teaches us. For those who minister, prayer comes first, for apart from prayer they will not speak the Word rightly.
- Discontent. Growth brought the first failure inside the church. Greek-speaking believers murmured that their widows went without. Jealousy showed that the flesh lives on even in a Spirit-filled company.
- Diversion. The apostles saw the murmur as a pull away from preaching. They acted before it grew into an outcry.
- Distinction. Serving tables is real service, but a different one. The seven took the everyday work so that others stayed free for the word.
- Delegation. The people chose the men, and the apostles put them over the work. The church picks who handles the church's money; God gives the gifts for the word.
- Devotion. The twelve held on to prayer and the ministry of the word. For those who serve, prayer comes first, or they will not speak the word rightly.
Look out therefore, brethren, from among yourselves seven men, well reported of, full of [the] [Holy] Spirit and wisdom, whom we will establish over this business
Acts 6 opens with a complaint: Greek-speaking believers said the daily food hand-out was skipping their widows. The apostles handed that job to seven men chosen by the church — and the bar they set for those men was high.
The apostles saw more in the grumbling than a quarrel over food. They moved before it grew.
It was only a "murmuring" that arose, but the apostles did not wait for it to become a loud outcry. They saw Satan's aim in it: to turn them from preaching the Word to social service. So they took steps to end any possible objection. They told the church to pick seven men for the work, men who were to be "of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom." These men were to handle it with a wisdom and honesty beyond all reproach.
Two things happen here. The disciples look out the men, and the apostles appoint them.
The money came from the disciples as a whole. So the apostles call on them to look out from among themselves brothers they could gladly trust. Yet it was the apostles, acting for the Lord in due order, who established them over the business… Loving wisdom turns ungrateful complaints into good. Where the Lord gives, He chooses, as for all ministry in the word; where the assembly gives, they choose, as in this case.
The same writer sets this beside two other patterns. The seven are not gifted preachers, and they are not elders.
The three principles are quite distinct. (1) The Lord chooses and sends those whom He gives as gifts to the church. (2) The apostle, or an apostolic man with an express commission, chooses or establishes elders. (3) The assembly chooses the administrators of its funds, and the apostles set them solemnly over this business.
The first test is what other people say about a man. One writer includes the people outside the faith.
Some would say that we are not to listen to the testimony of the world. God's Word says otherwise. The elder "must be well thought of by outsiders," and so it is here too. The world is a very good judge of an honest or a dishonest Christian. It usually gives a very fair and sound judgment on such a point. I have no objection to the judgment of the world in a matter like that.
Acts 6 set the pattern for a deacon's work.
From Acts 6 we learn that his special work is "serving tables." As the passage shows, this means meeting the bodily and daily needs of the assembly. The work of the overseer is different: it is concerned mainly with meeting spiritual needs. Even so, the deacon still needs spiritual qualifications.
So is some church work merely practical, and not spiritual?
There is no such thing as "everyday affairs" in the Church of Christ. All things are sacred. What an object lesson! A man must be filled with the Spirit to rightly minister to the needs of the saints. Let us remember this.
Notice who the church picked in the end.
Every man chosen came from the murmurers. Grace is the great cure for murmuring. It was the Greek-speaking Jews who murmured. And though they are not called deacons, the seven who did the work of deacons were all Greek-speaking. Not even four Greek-speaking and three Hebrews, but all Greek-speaking. What a lesson in the power of grace when it is active!
Two of the seven went on to do far more than hand out funds.
But deacons, like the seven, were not tied only to the service they were appointed to do. Those who have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. We see this in Stephen and Philip, who were two of the seven. God greatly honoured the one as a teacher of the truth. He used the other widely to spread the gospel where it had never yet reached.
- Complaint — the apostles met the murmuring over neglected widows at once. They saw a move to pull them away from the Word.
- Delegation — the apostles would not leave preaching the Word for social service. They handed the food and money to seven other men.
- Qualification — three tests: reputation others can verify, fullness of the Spirit, and wisdom. Practical work still demands a spiritual man.
- Choice — those who gave the money chose the men; the apostles appointed them. Gift and spiritual ministry come from the Lord, not from a vote.
- Outcome — grace picked all seven from the very group that complained. Two of them, Stephen and Philip, served well and gained a good standing and boldness.
but *we* will give ourselves up to prayer and the ministry of the word.
A complaint in Jerusalem about the daily serving of food could have pulled the twelve apostles into full-time administration. Their answer draws a line, and it raises the question every servant of God faces: what is my real work, and in what order do I keep it?
The apostles weighed what staying in that work would finally cost. One writer shows how loving wisdom turned an ungrateful complaint to good, and draws a principle out of who does the choosing.
It was not right or fitting that they should give up the word of God to serve tables. Yet that is where staying in that work would have led them. So loving wisdom turns ungrateful complaints to good. And in this an important principle is made plain. Where the Lord gives, He chooses, as He does for all ministry in the word. Where the assembly gives, the assembly chooses, as here.
One writer sees a real effort to pull the apostles off course. In their answer he finds the church's true weapons.
They were well covered in that spiritual armour, which let them turn aside the effort of the "world rulers of this darkness" to divert them from their true service into "serving tables." So they turned to their proper business and said, "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The ministry of the Word, or as 1 Corinthians 1:18-21 puts it, "the preaching" — "the preaching of the cross" — is one great spiritual weapon. Prayer is another.
The apostles speak with emphasis: this is their work. One writer weighs the order too — prayer comes ahead of the ministry of the word because it keeps that ministry out of man's hands.
"But we," say the apostles with emphasis, "will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." This deserves much weight. For that service of the word, prayer should take first place. So it was with the apostles, but not with the Corinthian believers... Prayer is dependence going out and expressing itself. It is needed all the more so that the ministry of the word does not rest on the will or resources of man. Instead it comes in weakness, in fear and in much trembling, yet with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that the faith of the saints stands not in men's wisdom but in God's power.
That order is not the only one. Another writer sets two orders side by side: which comes first depends on who you are.
For those who are taught, the Word comes first (see 1 Tim. 4:5), because we only pray rightly when the Word has taught us. For those who minister, prayer comes first, because without prayer they will not speak the Word rightly.
The apostles' choice also puts a question to us. One writer asks where our own failure lies.
We see that they recognise the word of God as their true sphere of service. They want to give themselves to it completely, and they join prayer with it, which they put first, as the necessary condition. Without that link of conscious dependence, what gift — even the greatest — could be of any use?... Is it not here, in fact, that we fail so much, and the ministry of the word fails in the same measure?
Another writer says the same about the work of evangelism.
I feel deeply how little prayerful spirit we bring to the work of evangelism... it seems to me that we fall far short when it comes to earnest, persevering, believing prayer. This is the true secret of power.
The chapter then records what came of that decision, poor as the root of it was.
The field was about to be enlarged. Only a poor root, man's complaints, led to this fresh line of action, yet God was moving over it all. He could use these seven, and would give some of them a good standing, as we find soon in Stephen and later in Philip. He marked it in another way too, which showed His approval: "The word of God increased," in spite of the murmuring, "and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly."
- Guard — the apostles would not let a good work crowd out their own. Staying at the tables would have meant leaving the word of God.
- Give — what they guarded, they gave themselves to fully. Prayer and the word were their true sphere of service, not a side interest.
- Ground — they put prayer first because it expresses dependence. Then the ministry rests on God's power, not on man's resources.
- Gauge — the order flips for the hearer. Those being taught need the word first; those who minister need prayer first.
- Growth — keeping this order bore fruit. The word of God increased and the disciples multiplied greatly, though the whole thing started with a complaint.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and [the] Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch,
The first quarrel inside the young church ended with seven men chosen to hand out food each day. Their names tell one story, and their choice raises a question: who picks a servant, and who appoints him?
The murmuring in verse 1 came from the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebrews. Now look at whose names fill verse 5.
The grace shown by the apostles met a remarkable answer in the crowd. All the names are Greek, which points to a Greek-speaking background. It seems they chose every one of the seven from the Greek-speaking believers — the very group that had complained against the Hebrews. Was not this grace enough to make the suspicious ashamed? No one arranged a balance of parties or a fair share of places, the way business habits or a courtroom would suggest.
We would probably arrange it differently: "A modern day church meeting would have proposed to elect a committee composed of equal numbers of the two parties. But not so here" (Arno Clemens Gaebelein).
The apostles had asked for three things in verse 3. The exact wording matters.
The disciples accepted the advice, and quickly found seven men with those qualifications and elected them unanimously. Being "of good repute" was one qualification for the service: the testimony and judgment of other people counted. "Full of the Holy Spirit" was another qualification: full, not filled — which marks the person's general way of life. Full "of wisdom" — this was the third suggested qualification. Of two of the seven — Stephen and Philip — the writer of Acts will have more to tell us. The others who here come on the scene do not appear on the face of the narrative again.
Stephen alone gets a description in this list: full of faith and of the Holy Spirit. That pairing has an order to it.
Christian qualities mark him in a striking way. Scripture calls him a man "full of faith and of the Holy Spirit", "full of grace and power", and marked by "wisdom" (Acts 6:5, 8, 10). These are the outstanding marks of a Christian. Faith must come first. But once we have believed the gospel of our salvation, God seals us with the Holy Spirit. Having the Spirit, we are told to "be filled with the Spirit". If we are filled with the Spirit, grace will mark us — grace that meets every evil in the spirit of Christ. So will power to rise above every circumstance, and wisdom to meet all opposition.
The believers themselves picked the seven. Commentators draw a line between that and how preachers and teachers come to their work.
The Christian crowd gave the money, so the apostles left them free to choose the men who would hand it out. This was as wise as it was gracious. The apostles kept away from anything that looked like favouritism, and stuck to their own work with prayer, which is the condition of power... Where the saints gave, they chose by their best judgment the right men to use what they gave... But they never interfered with the ministers of the word. The Lord gave those, not the church.
Choosing was not the whole of it. The seven were set before the apostles, "and if all chose, none but the apostles appointed them over the business, secular as it was" (William Kelly).
The seven chosen here were then brought to the apostles, and the hands laid on them in verse 6 go back to an Old Testament custom.
Notice too that once "the seven" had been chosen, they came before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them as a sign of fellowship with their appointment. Laying on of hands was an old sign of blessing (Gen. 48:14), above all of official recognition (Num. 27:23), or of handing someone over to God's grace (Acts 13:3, Acts 14:26).
Serving tables sounds like a minor errand. Two of these seven show what it led to.
The service of a deacon might seem a very small matter, but nothing in God's service is really small... You can see this in the later history of two men named in Acts 6:5. Stephen went on to become the first Christian martyr. Philip became a much used preacher of the gospel — the only man in Scripture called an evangelist (see Acts 21:8). Every true servant of God has begun with small and humble things, so none of us should look down on them or avoid them, though that is our natural tendency.
- Grace, not balance. All seven names are Greek. The men came from the very group that had complained — not a balanced committee, but generosity that shamed suspicion.
- Full, not filled. Good repute, the Holy Spirit and wisdom describe a settled way of life, not a burst of feeling.
- Faith first. In Stephen, faith comes first. The Spirit follows, and His marks are grace, power and wisdom.
- Chosen below, appointed above. Those who gave the money chose men they trusted. The apostles prayed, laid hands on them and appointed them. But no one chose the ministers of the word — the Lord gives those.
- Small work, large outcome. Stephen went from serving tables to dying as the first martyr, and Philip became an evangelist. Every true servant starts small.
whom they set before the apostles; and, having prayed, they laid their hands on them.
The believers had chosen seven men to look after the widows who were missing out on the daily distribution. Now they bring those seven to the twelve apostles. What follows takes half a verse: prayer, then hands. Christendom has copied the act ever since, and has often misused it.
The believers made the choice, but the appointing belonged to someone else.
Ministry in the Word needed no apostolic authorisation. Ministers of the Word are gifts from the ascended Christ to men (Ephesians 4:11-12), and God Himself sets them in the assembly (1 Corinthians 12:28)... Filling an office such as elder or deacon was another matter: it needed apostolic authority, direct or indirect. So the apostles told the assembly to select the men "whom we may appoint over this business." We should mark the we here. It spoke of an authority which none of the company except the apostles could exercise... Here we have the first ordination in the Christian Church — an ordination, we repeat, not to preach, but to carry out the office of serving tables.
Those who gave the money could name the men who would hand it out. Elders were a different case.
The whole body of believers chose the seven at Jerusalem, who served as deacons, and then the apostles appointed them. This election by the church does not apply to elders. Every scripture that deals with the appointment of elders makes that plain: it lay with the apostles alone, or with deputies they had openly authorised... Where Christians gave of their money, they were free to choose men they trusted to hand it out.
Acts does not explain the gesture, so commentators look at where the Bible first uses it.
In the opening chapters of Leviticus we read how the man bringing an offering was to lay his hand on the head of it. Of the peace offering we read: "He shall lay his hand on the head of his offering." This meant that the Israelite identified himself with the offering. And that is what the apostles meant by laying on their hands. They identified themselves and the assembly with them in the work for which they had been chosen. It was a very simple and appropriate act to show their fellowship with them.
Notice the order: the apostles pray first, and only then do they lay hands on the seven.
The laying on of hands showed identification with their service. No one should do this lightly or in a hurry (1 Timothy 5:22). Even the apostles saw that they needed God's guidance in prayer before they committed to it. In the same way, in Acts 13 they prayed and fasted first. Only then did they lay hands on Saul and Barnabas, who had just been called to do the Lord's work.
Two of the seven — Stephen and Philip — later preached with power and worked miracles. Did the hands laid on them here qualify them for that?
If someone says he was officially set apart, the answer is that it was to serve tables, not to preach the word of God. The whole point of the office was that the twelve, freed from care about this business, could give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. Philip preached with power, Stephen argued with irresistible wisdom, and both worked miracles. None of that came from an appointment which covered the daily distribution and nothing else.
Scripture says plainly that hands were laid on these men. It never says the same about elders. Kelly thinks hands were probably laid on elders too, yet he takes the silence of the record as deliberate.
Probably a similar laying on of hands took place when elders were appointed... But Scripture says nothing about it. That silence seems meant to guard believers from the deadly routine of superstitious form that has spread over Christendom, dishonouring the Lord and harming rule... How weak is the foundation of church pride! How perfect is the word of God, both in what it says and in what it leaves unsaid!
Later generations attached claims to the act that Acts 6 never made.
Christendom has copied this apostolic action and badly misused it, claiming that it hands a man a status and passes on spiritual blessing. Treated instead as a simple recognition and mark of fellowship in service, it would be a scriptural act.
- Chosen — the believers who gave the money named the men they trusted. The choice came from the whole company, not from the leaders.
- Presented — the believers set the seven before the apostles, because only the apostles held the authority to appoint.
- Prayed — the apostles asked God first. Even they would not lay hands on a man in a hurry.
- Identified — the hands said "we are with you in this," like the worshipper's hand on his offering. They did not say "we now give you power."
- Limited — the appointment covered the daily distribution and nothing more. Stephen's wisdom and Philip's preaching came from somewhere else.
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was very greatly multiplied, and a great crowd of the priests obeyed the faith.
The apostles have just appointed seven men to settle a complaint inside the young church, and Luke pauses to report the result. Two questions arise: how can the word of God itself "increase," and why does Luke single out the priests?
The complaint itself opened the way to something larger.
The field was about to be enlarged; and although it was only a poor root of man's complaints that led to this fresh line of action, God was moving over it all. He could use these seven, and would give some of them a good degree, as we find in Stephen soon and in Philip later. But He marked it in another way too, which showed His approval. Despite the murmuring, "the word of God continued to increase," and "the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem." A new feature appears as well — "a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith."
Words do not multiply; people do. Scripture still ties the two together.
So it says "the word of God continued to increase" (Acts 6:7), and the connection is "the number of the disciples multiplied greatly." Similarly, "the word of God increased and multiplied" (Acts 12:24). These passages mark the mighty effect of His word made known through preaching. The effect produced is identified with its source.
"The faith" here names a body of truth, and one writer explains why it carries that name.
"The faith" is the whole body of truth that God has revealed in connection with the Lord Jesus Christ. It has not yet been set up in any visible or public way. It is "the truth," but since at present only faith can grasp it, it is "the faith." That faith is now being announced among the nations. Out of them God is gathering a people for His Name. They show themselves to be His by yielding the obedience of faith to "the faith" when they hear it.
The obedience meant is not first of all a changed lifestyle.
The letter to the Romans calls this the "obedience of faith." It does not mean the practical obedience that faith produces in daily life. It means the first act of believing God's word. This is really the heart's obedience. It is the person's obeying the truth, the soul's acceptance of God's testimony to His Son.
Some scholars have found this detail so unlikely that they tried to remove it from the text.
It is painful to note how ready learned men are to fend off and cut down the wonders of God's grace. Some would change the text; others would change the only proper sense of the last clause. Either way, the aim is to get rid of this great work among the priests. Is anything too hard for the Lord? Were priests alone a hopeless class?
Their conversion cost them something, and gained them more.
Luke mentions a great company of priests among those brought in. This was no light matter. The high priest and other leading priests were bitterly opposed to the name of Jesus. Confessing Him would no doubt end their official position as priests. But they would learn later that they had a better priesthood, shared with all the beloved saints of God (1 Peter 2:4-5) — not official, but spiritual and real.
Commentators differ on how soon that break came.
We have no ground to conclude that they had yet paused their priestly duties in the temple at all. Rather, the truth gave them more zeal and care in carrying them out. The call to go out to Jesus outside the camp, bearing His reproach, came much later — only shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem.
The scene looked like a nation on the verge of turning back to God.
It looked most promising when the word of God grew as an object of faith and a distinct power among men. The disciples multiplied so greatly in the city of solemn feasts itself, and the very priests were now flocking in... But the truth was that God was only separating to the name of Jesus those of His ancient people who should be saved. This came before He sent His armies, destroyed the murderers of His servants, and burned up their city according to the word of the Lord.
- Word first. Scripture credits the growth to the word of God; the effect carries the name of its source.
- Word freed. A complaint led to the appointing of seven men, and God used it to enlarge the field.
- Word obeyed. "The faith" is the revealed body of truth about Christ; obeying it begins with the heart accepting God's testimony to His Son.
- Word reaching. It reached even the priests, whose leaders fought the name of Jesus — proof that no class is hopeless, though it cost them their office.
- Word separating. God was not turning a nation around. He was gathering a people to the name of Jesus before judgment fell on the city.
And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought wonders and great signs among the people.
Acts 6 opens with a practical problem. Seven men are chosen to serve tables and care for the widows. Then one of them steps into a far greater work. Where did Stephen's power come from, and why did it stir such fury?
The words used of Stephen describe character before they describe activity. Hamilton Smith reads the three descriptions given in this chapter as a portrait of what any believer should look like.
Christian qualities mark him in a striking way. Scripture calls him a man "full of faith and of the Holy Spirit," "full of grace and power," and marked by "wisdom" (Acts 6:5, 8, 10). These are the outstanding marks of a Christian. Faith must come first. But once we have believed the gospel of our salvation, God seals us with the Holy Spirit. Having the Spirit, we are told to "be filled with the Spirit." If we are filled with the Spirit, we should show the grace that meets every evil in the spirit of Christ, the power to rise above every circumstance, and the wisdom to meet all opposition.
Stephen held no leading position. The church had given him a lowly task, and its highest authorities were all in the city. That is what makes this verse remarkable.
Even in those days the church shone in order and beauty as never since. The highest authorities God ever set in the church were all there. Yet we see His sovereign grace acting in a man with no other title than what grace gave him. He was not even a bishop or elder; he had been set apart with others to a serious but lowly service. Yet we find him soon after described as full of "grace" (not "faith" only) and power, working great marvels and signs among the people. There was no jealousy in that day of grace and power: for all who could and did glorify the Lord there was room and welcome.
Nobody sent Stephen out to this work. Darby points to who the Spirit chose for the last testimony, and where the authority for it did not lie. Hellenists were Greek-speaking Jews.
Notice here the free power of the Holy Spirit. No one else sent him to this work, as happened with the apostles, whom Christ Himself appointed. It is not authority in the apostles, it is not in the Jews of Palestine. He distributes to whom He will. It is the godly and devoted Hellenist who gives the last testimony to the heads of the nation.
Until now in Acts, the apostles had done the wonders and signs. Stephen breaks that pattern, and Philip after him. Neither did so because of the job the church gave him.
That divine energy had nothing to do with his being one of "the seven." That role was only to serve tables and care for the widows. Until now the hands of the apostles had worked many wonders and signs (Acts 2:43; Acts 5:12). Now Stephen did the same in Jerusalem, and Philip later in Samaria (Acts 6:8; Acts 8:6-7)... But his power in handling God's word was great. It roused the determined opposition of others, as it must in such a world as this, where His word pierces the conscience.
Kelly weighs the signs against Stephen's speech and says which went deeper.
Stephen was doing great marvels and signs (v. 8) to the glory of the rejected but exalted Christ, the Second Man in heaven. Yet the wisdom and the Spirit that enabled him to speak (v. 10) were a reality still deeper and more blessed. The one might arrest anyone, but no adversary could withstand the other.
What begins here as wonders among the people ends before the council. Gaebelein traces the parallels with Jesus right through.
He was filled with the Spirit, full of faith and power. Like the Lord, he did great wonders and miracles among the people. Like Christ, they charged him falsely with speaking against Moses, the law and the temple, and with being a blasphemer. They brought him before the same council and did what they did with the Lord, bringing false witnesses against him... May the same power transform us all into the same image.
- Grace first. Stephen's power rests on what he was full of: grace received, not rank held.
- Grace gives the title. He was neither apostle nor elder — his only credential was what grace had given him.
- Grace flows freely. The Spirit gives as He will, choosing a table-server for signs the apostles alone had done until now.
- Grace speaks. The wonders could arrest people; the wisdom and Spirit in his speech no opponent could resist.
- Grace conforms. The fullness that gave him power also made him like his Master — the same false witnesses, the same council.
And there arose up certain of those of the synagogue called of freedmen, and of Cyrenians, and of Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.
The first attack on Stephen does not come from the priests or the council. It comes from inside the synagogues of Jerusalem, from Jews raised in Rome, North Africa, and Asia Minor. Who were these men? Why did they rise against him, and what does their failure show?
The first group named has a puzzling title. Kelly traces it to men who had suffered for their religion abroad.
Who were the Libertines? The oldest interpretation on record says they were Jewish freedmen, banished from Rome in A.D. 19. Pompey had carried many prisoners of war there. Their masters later set them free and allowed them to keep their religion. As another writer has suggested, it is natural that such men should feel strongly if they thought the religion they had suffered for abroad was insulted or attacked at home. In any case, the inspired historian puts them in the front rank of Stephen's adversaries.
The name marks their legal standing, not their morals. As one writer puts it, "Jews had been taken to Rome as slaves. Their descendants were later set free, and were called Libertines, that is, freedmen" (Arno Clemens Gaebelein).
Every group in the verse belongs to one class. They were Greek-speaking Jews, and they met in their own synagogues.
There must have been a large number of them in Jerusalem. They had several synagogues, and some think five of them are named in this verse... Their synagogue interests were separate, and each synagogue probably cared for its own poor. To these Greek-speaking Jews, Stephen, who was perhaps one of them, was deeply offensive.
Commentators differ over how many synagogues the verse names. Kelly argues for separate meeting places: "We are told that there were then some 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. It seems very unlikely that each did not have its own separate place" (William Kelly).
Life away from Jerusalem had not softened these men.
Though they had been scattered, they were zealous for Judaism and furious at another Hellenist who would dare to preach the name of Jesus.
They came at him in numbers; he stood alone and won the argument.
Numbers were on their side. He is the only one named as fighting bravely for the truth. But numbers did not frighten him. Alone he could face his opponents and defeat them... They could not convince him. They could not silence him. They could not resist the wisdom he showed, or the Holy Spirit by whom he spoke. The Lord had promised, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict" (Luke 21:15)... One man could confound a multitude.
Losing the argument did not end the matter. It changed the weapon.
The men of the various synagogues named in verse 9 seem to have been all of the Greek-speaking class, the class Stephen himself belonged to. All their skill in argument counted for nothing against the power of the Spirit in Stephen. So they turned to the usual trick of lying witnesses and violence. Later they put Moses before God. They knew what would stir the crowd most: Moses was a man, and so more real to them than the invisible God.
Stephen was not an apostle. Darby sees in that the point of the whole scene.
The Hellenist Jews oppose him, and, unable to answer him, they accuse him before the council... Notice here the free power of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the apostles, whom Christ Himself appointed, no one sent Stephen to this work. The authority is not in the apostles, and it is not in the Jews of Palestine. He distributes to whom He will. It is the godly and devoted Hellenist who gives the last testimony to the heads of the nation.
Paul may have stood among these opponents. Commentators say so with care, as a possibility and not a fact.
Perhaps Paul had joined with those Hellenistic Jews who disputed with Stephen (Acts 6:9). He refused the truth then, but in later years he could have said that those early workers confirmed to the Hebrews what the Lord had first taught.
- Freedmen — the Libertines were freed slaves, or their children, banished from Rome. They had suffered for their religion abroad, and they defended it at home.
- Foreigners — every group named was Greek-speaking and raised outside Judea, with its own synagogue in Jerusalem. The attack came from Stephen's own class.
- Free — Stephen held no office and no commission from the apostles. The Spirit still chose him to give the last testimony to the nation's leaders.
- Foiled — they had the numbers; he had the wisdom Christ promised, and one man silenced a crowd.
- Force — beaten in argument, they turned to lying witnesses and violence. They put Moses ahead of God, since a man stirred the crowd more than the invisible God.
And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.
The men arguing with Stephen were not fools, and they were not few — yet the record says plainly that they lost. This verse says why they lost. It also shows what opposition does when argument fails: it changes weapons.
The men who argued with Stephen belonged to a synagogue named after former slaves:
It is wrong to call these "Libertines" free thinkers. Jews had been taken to Rome as slaves. Their descendants gained their freedom, and people called them Libertines, that is, freedmen. They were known by that name in Jerusalem, and so the synagogue was called "the synagogue of the Libertines."
Their history helps explain the heat of their reaction:
Men like these would naturally feel strongly, as another writer has suggested, if they thought the religion they had suffered for abroad was insulted or put in danger at home. In any case, the inspired historian places them at the very front of Stephen's opponents.
Verse 8 says Stephen did great wonders and signs. Verse 10 points to something greater:
Stephen was doing great marvels and signs (v. 8) to the glory of the rejected but exalted Christ, the Second Man in heaven. Yet one cannot hesitate to say that the wisdom and the Spirit that enabled him to speak (v. 10) were something deeper and more blessed still. The signs might arrest anyone, but no adversary could withstand that speaking.
Jesus had promised His followers words their opponents could not answer. Luke, who preserved that promise in his Gospel, now shows it kept:
Numbers were on their side. Stephen alone is named as the one bravely contending for the truth. But their numbers did not frighten him... They did not convince him, and they could not silence him. They could not resist the wisdom he showed, or the Holy Spirit by whom he spoke. "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict" (Luke 21:15) had been the Lord's promise. The evangelist who preserved that promise here shows how fully it came true. One man could confound a crowd. Minds of no small ability may have stood against him — Saul of Tarsus, if we may judge by him. But the Holy Spirit was with him, and all his opponents felt completely baffled.
Acts calls Stephen full of the Spirit. That fullness is what his opponents ran into:
When the Spirit fills a believer like this, the flesh in him is judged and quiet, and His power cannot be resisted. Stephen shows this. He was full of the Holy Spirit, and his opponents "could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking" (Acts 6:10). Unable to resist, they turned to violence, and their stones beat his body to death, so destroying that "temple" of the Holy Spirit.
Stephen was not one of the apostles. No one sent him to this work. Yet the last warning to the nation's leaders came through him:
Notice here the free power of the Holy Spirit. No one else sent Stephen to this work, as Christ Himself sent the apostles He appointed. The authority is not in the apostles, and it is not in the Jews of Palestine. He distributes to whom He will. It is the godly and devoted Greek-speaking Jew who brings the last testimony to the heads of the nation.
Losing the argument did not soften them. It hardened them:
Power is not noisy or boastful. It makes itself felt — or rather, it makes God and the truth felt — and people devoted to form and tradition cannot bear that. So their hatred turns to the lowest methods, as here: "Then they secretly instigated men who said, 'We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.'"
One chapter later Stephen turns the charge back on them. They could not stand against the Spirit's wisdom, and Stephen says they had fought the Spirit all along:
Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, and he carried His testimony to a glorified Christ. He charged the leaders of Israel with resisting the Holy Spirit, and with having betrayed and murdered the Righteous One.
- Filled. Stephen's power did not start with his arguments. It started with a man full of the Holy Spirit, in whom the flesh was judged and quiet.
- Given. The wisdom was not his own achievement. Jesus had promised a mouth and wisdom no adversary could withstand. Luke shows that promise kept.
- Free. The Spirit chose Stephen, not an apostle, to deliver the last testimony to the nation's leaders. He distributes to whom He will.
- Deeper. Signs and wonders could catch attention. No one could answer the Spirit-given word. The greater marvel here is the speaking, not the miracles.
- Resisted. They could not answer his wisdom, so they turned to false witnesses and stones. Stephen's later charge fits: they had always resisted the Holy Spirit.
Then they suborned men, saying, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.
They could not answer Stephen, so they changed tactics and quietly hired men to swear they had heard him blaspheme. The charge named Moses first and God second, and that order tells you a lot about the men behind it.
The verse says they secretly instigated men. Older translations say they "suborned" them, and a dictionary of Bible terms explains that older word:
To secretly get witnesses in order to make false statements.
The secrecy itself gives the accusers away:
It is a solemn thing to watch unbelieving men at work. They can find a show of reason for pinning the most hateful charges on the truth they hate, and on those who proclaim it. Yet why hire men in secret to inform, if they honestly felt anger at the wickedness they alleged?
Verse 10 says they could not resist his wisdom. Verse 11 shows what people do when they lose an argument they cannot afford to lose.
Power is not noisy or boastful. It makes itself felt — or rather, it makes God and the truth felt. Men devoted to form and tradition cannot stand that. So their hostility resorts to the lowest means, as here.
The order of the words matters, and so does what happens to it later in the trial:
They found men and prompted them to lie. These men accused Stephen of blasphemy against Moses and against God. Notice, Moses matters more to them than God. In fact verse 13 leaves God out altogether and adds the temple and the law instead.
Another writer tests the charge by that same word order:
Like a straw floating on water, the order of the charge shows which way the current was running. Would the Holy Spirit ever have dictated a charge in that form?
The lie had a thread of truth in it. One commentator suggests what Stephen had been teaching, and how it could be bent into a charge of blasphemy:
One can see how the charge got a footing. To claim for Jesus the title of Christ, the Anointed, implied that He was greater than Moses. The Lord had also said that not one stone of the temple would be left on another. So to hint that the temple would not last could look like blaspheming the God Whose house it was.
That thread of truth changes nothing about the men who used it:
Even if Stephen had said the words, the witnesses were still false. Nothing could be more wickedly untrue than the claim that he said anything disrespectful about God or Moses, the law or the temple. But wicked men hear with a wicked feeling. The Spirit calls them false witnesses, even though Stephen's words may have sounded as they reported them.
The accusers reached the public before they reached the court, and it worked:
This accusation did its work in stirring up the crowd. A crowd can raise an outcry without ever demanding proof of the accusation. That is what happened here. The one-sided statements of those contemptible men stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes. Those men were ready to lie under oath to get Stephen condemned. They seized him and hurried him before the council.
Stephen's trial repeats the trial of Jesus point for point:
Like Christ, he faced false charges of speaking against Moses, the law and the temple, and of blasphemy. They brought him before the same council and treated him as they had treated the Lord, bringing false witnesses against him. Before that council the Lord had confessed that He was to sit at the right hand of God. Stephen witnessed that this was true, and he saw Him there.
- Hired. To suborn is to get witnesses in secret to make false statements. The secrecy gives the accusers away: honest anger does not need to buy informants.
- Cornered. They could not answer his wisdom, so their hostility took the lowest means. Slander is what men reach for when they cannot answer the truth.
- Ranked. The charge puts Moses before God. By verse 13 it drops God altogether. The word order shows where their hearts were.
- Twisted. Calling Jesus the Christ, and the temple temporary, gave the lie its show of reason. Yet the Spirit still names these men false witnesses, for wicked men hear with a wicked feeling.
- Repeated. The crowd never asked for proof. Stephen stood before the same council, on the same charge, and met the same method that condemned his Master.
And they roused the people, and the elders, and the scribes. And coming upon [him] they seized him and brought [him] to the council.
Stephen's opponents had lost the argument in public, so they changed tactics and turned to the crowd and the courts. In one verse he moves from a synagogue debate to the dock of Israel's highest court, with both leaders and people against him.
One writer notes how little the crowd asked for before it joined in.
Arguments could not silence him, and their debating skill could not defeat him. So they had to try other means. The accusation did its work in stirring up the crowd. A crowd can raise a popular cry without ever asking for proof of the charge. That is plainly what happened here. The statements of those despicable men stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes — men ready to commit perjury to get Stephen condemned. Seizing him, they hurried him before the council. Now definite charges had to be made. The council could not convict him on such a general charge as these informers had spread. Witnesses had to come forward.
The anger ran across party lines and became a national mood.
They roused the people and the elders and the scribes. Here the Pharisees would be as furious as the Sadducees, or more so. It was a general outburst of distinctly Jewish resentment. So they seized Stephen and brought him into the council.
One writer traces the opposition through three stages and marks what is new in this third one.
Rousing the people, the elders, and the scribes, they seize him and bring him to the council. First the high priest's family had sought the life of the church. Then all the elders of the sons of Israel joined them. Now, this third time, we find not these alone, but the people also joined with them in persecuting the church.
The "council" is the Sanhedrin. A dictionary entry gives its make-up and its limits.
From the New Testament we find it consisted of the chief priests, or heads of the twenty-four courses, the elders, lawyers, and the scribes. It was the highest court of the Jews. It acted "in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical and civil." Its decisions bound Jews everywhere. Herod cut back its powers, and the Romans later did the same. They would not let the Jews put anyone to death legally. The Lord; Peter and John; Stephen; and Paul were arraigned before the Sanhedrin.
One writer sets Stephen's treatment side by side with the Lord's.
Like Christ, he was falsely accused of speaking against Moses, the law and the temple, and of being a blasphemer. They brought him before the same council and did what they had done with the Lord, bringing false witnesses against him.
Suppose Stephen had said something close to what the witnesses reported. Would that make their testimony true? One commentator answers no.
If the words had been said, the witnesses were none the less false. Nothing could be more untrue, or more wicked, than the claim that he said anything disrespectful to God or Moses, to the law or the temple. But wicked men listen with wicked hearts. The Spirit calls them false witnesses, even if Stephen's words sounded as they reported.
Stephen's enemies chose the most public setting they could. It worked against them.
In this public way the controversy between the nation and God was carried a step further. The council found themselves on trial before God. The Holy Spirit accused them through the very man who stood on trial before them.
- Cornered: They could not answer Stephen, so they silenced him by force.
- Stirred: A public accusation works without proof; the crowd took up a cry it had never examined.
- Joined: First the priests, then the elders, now the people — the whole nation has turned against him.
- Staged: He stands before the same court that tried his Master, on the same charges, with the same false witnesses.
- Reversed: The man on trial speaks for the Spirit, and the judges end up judged.
And they set false witnesses, saying, This man does not cease speaking words against the holy place and the law;
A crowd stirred up against Stephen has just dragged him before the council. Now the prosecution produces its evidence: men who testify that he never stops speaking against the temple and the law. The verse calls them false witnesses. So what was false, when Stephen's own defence in the next chapter says things that sound close to the charge?
The accusation was not made up out of nothing. Stephen may have said words that could be reported this way. The question is what the men listening did with them.
Even if he had said the words, the witnesses were still false. It was utterly untrue that he had said anything disrespectful about God or Moses, the law or the temple. But wicked men hear with a wicked heart. So the Spirit calls them false witnesses, even though Stephen's words may have sounded the way they reported them.
Notice the order of the accusations, from the earlier claim in verse 11 through to this one. They chose each item for the reaction it would get from the crowd.
In verse 11 they put Moses in front of God. They knew what would most stir up the crowd. Moses was a man, so he seemed more real to them than the invisible God. In the same way, in verse 13, "this holy place," which they could see with their own eyes, comes before the law. And last of all, "the customs that Moses delivered to us" were perhaps dearer to them than anything.
A rumour of blasphemy was too vague to win a verdict. The accusers needed something definite, and one earlier trial had gone the same way.
The council could not convict him on such a general charge as these informers had spread. Witnesses had to be produced. And as in the Lord's case, so here — Stephen's enemies could bring forward none but false ones. They now dropped the word blasphemy and put a more precise statement in its place.
Behind the twisted report was real teaching. It touched the one thing his accusers would not give up: the place they had given the temple.
Clearly they were twisting Stephen's words. Even if the charge were true, it was no reason to put a man to death. He had very likely said before what he says in his later speech to the council: that the Most High does not live in houses made by hands. He had likely also repeated the prophecy of the Lord Jesus that Israel's temple would be destroyed, with not one stone left on another. For they had given the temple the place that by right only belongs to the great Founder of the temple, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Stephen's reply in the next chapter does not soften the charge. It shows the charge was impossible from the start.
Stephen was accused of insulting what the Hebrews held most sacred — the sanctuary and the law... Grace is never the enemy of law. Grace stands far higher, and it actually establishes the law. The word of the prophets did not hide that not one stone of the temple's grand buildings would be left on another. But was Jesus a destroyer because He was a prophet, and far more than a prophet?... But unbelief is deaf and blind. It tends to blame those who love the truth for its own evils.
"This holy place" means the temple in Jerusalem. Israel's own history and prophets had already said the very thing his accusers treated as his invention. One building had replaced another before, and no building ever held God.
Then take the charge of speaking against "the holy place." Did they not remember that the tabernacle had given way to the temple? And long after that temple was built, God declared through the prophet Isaiah that heaven, not a building of stone on earth, was His true dwelling place: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made" (Isaiah 66:1-2).
- Hearing — the accusers may have repeated real words, but they twisted the meaning. A wicked heart turns true words into false testimony.
- Framing — they stacked the charge for effect. Moses came ahead of God, the visible holy place ahead of the law, and the customs were dearest of all.
- Repeating — a vague rumour could not convict, so they built a precise charge. As at the Lord's trial, only false witnesses came forward.
- Answering — Stephen's reply shows that grace never opposes the law but establishes it. Unbelief blames those who love the truth for its own evils.
- Exposing — their own prophet said heaven, not a building, is God's dwelling. Men who prized the temple had already rejected the One it belongs to.
for we have heard him saying, This Jesus the Nazaraean shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses taught us.
This verse is the sharp point of the whole case against Stephen. The charge is no longer a vague complaint about blasphemy. It is a sentence the witnesses claim to have heard him say. Two questions follow. Did Stephen say it? And was any of it true?
The first accusation was too loose to convict anyone. The charge had to become words that witnesses could repeat. The Lord had faced the same tactic.
They now had to make definite statements. The council could not convict him on such a general charge as these informers had spread. They had to produce witnesses. As in the Lord's case, so here: Stephen's enemies could bring forward only false witnesses. In word they now dropped the charge of blasphemy and put a more precise statement in its place.
Scripture calls these men false witnesses. Their report may have been close to Stephen's own words, yet that verdict does not soften.
It was a general outburst of Jewish resentment, so they seized Stephen and brought him into the council. Even if he had said those words, the witnesses were still false. Nothing could be more wickedly untrue. He had said nothing disrespectful about God or Moses, about the law or the temple. But wicked men hear with a wicked feeling. The Spirit calls them false witnesses, even if Stephen's words sounded much as they reported them.
Notice the title they give Him. It runs through the Gospel accounts and through Acts, and it carries no honour.
The term "Nazarean" used here is the same one found in Matthew 2:23, in Mark 10:47, in John 19:19 and right through Acts. It is the name of shame and scorn.
They worded the charge with care. Notice the order: Moses ahead of God, the building ahead of the law, and the daily customs last of all. That last place is where their hearts lay.
In verse 11 they put Moses in front of God. They knew what would stir the crowd most. Moses was a man, so he seemed more real to them than the invisible God. In the same way, in verse 13, "this holy place" stood in front of their eyes, so it comes before the law. And last of all come "the customs that Moses delivered to us," which were perhaps dearer to them than anything. There was this much truth in the charge: the coming of Jesus had indeed begun a new departure in the ways of God.
The charge paints Jesus as the wrecker of everything holy. Two answers meet it. A prophet who foretells ruin is not the cause of it. And grace does not stand against the law.
Grace is never the enemy of law. Grace stands far higher, yet it establishes law. The prophetic word did not hide that not one stone of the great temple buildings would be left on another. But was Jesus a destroyer because He was a prophet, and far more than a prophet? Under His reign the law shall go out from Zion, and even in His humiliation He came not to destroy but to fulfil it. But unbelief is deaf and blind, and tends to blame those who love the truth for its own evils. Stephen said nothing except what the prophets and Moses had already said would come.
Both halves of the charge fall apart in the books the council itself accepted. Moses had promised a prophet they must obey. And God's house had already moved once, from the tent of worship to the temple.
Was Stephen denying Moses by preaching the Lord Jesus Christ as the one they should listen to? Such an accusation was groundless with Deuteronomy 18:18-19 in front of them. And if they were to listen to that prophet in everything he said, he might — could they deny it? — bring fresh revelations. Those would change how they kept the very customs they claimed such zeal for. Then take the charge of speaking against "the holy place." Did they not remember that the tabernacle had given place to the temple? And long after the temple was built, God declared through the prophet Isaiah that heaven, not a building on earth, was His true dwelling place.
- Sharpened — a vague charge convicts no one, so they traded it for a quotable sentence. They had used the same tactic on Jesus.
- Twisted — the witnesses stay false even if Stephen's words sounded much as they reported. Wicked men hear with a wicked feeling.
- Scorned — "of Nazareth" here is the name of shame; contempt for the Man drives the case against His servant.
- Prized — the charge climbs from Moses to the temple to the customs, naming what they loved most. And Jesus really had begun a new departure in God's ways.
- Answered — Moses foretold a prophet who could bring change. Isaiah said heaven, not a building, is God's dwelling. Christ came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it.
And all who sat in the council, looking fixedly on him, saw his face as [the] face of an angel.
Stephen stands on trial before the highest court in Jerusalem, falsely accused of speaking against the law of Moses. Every judge turns to look at him — and what they see is not the face of a condemned man.
The judges knew the look of a man facing death. One writer sets what they expected beside what they saw:
Naturally all eyes were turned to the prisoner. What did they see? One pale with fear? One trembling at the consequences of his acts, and shrinking from punishment? No! They witnessed a sight they were entirely unaccustomed to. "Gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel." A criminal about to die: was that the one who stood before them? Rather it was one like an angel prepared to go to heaven.
The charges against him were lies. The council watched his face for signs of anger:
How will Stephen act in the presence of these violent acts and lying charges? All the council turn to look at Stephen. Will his face show indignation and resentment at these lying charges? How will his Christianity stand the test of such an ordeal? To their surprise they see no trace of resentment or proud contempt on that face. Looking steadily at him they saw that his face was like the face of an angel. They saw a face lit up with the light of heaven. We may well challenge our hearts as to how we should have looked and acted under such terrible circumstances!
The timing was God's own. One writer also notes what Stephen himself did not know:
At this moment God bears remarkable witness to His servant, causing his face to shine as that of an angel, just at the time when all those of the council were intent on watching him. No doubt Stephen himself was not conscious of this (compare Ex. 34:29), though he would certainly know the reality of the power of the Spirit of God virtually enfolding him.
Stephen was accused of speaking against the law. How the law first came to Israel turned that charge back on his judges:
What a rebuke that shining face should have been for those who falsely accused him of speaking blasphemous words against the law (Acts 6:13-15). God had given the law through a ministry of angels, as Stephen later reminds them. The look on Stephen's face was their condemnation, because they had not kept the law they claimed to administer.
Commentators differ on what produced the light. Some see heaven's own glory shining back from his face:
Steadily they looked at a face of glory; a face reflecting heaven's light, heaven's glory; a face reflecting the glory of Him into whose presence he would soon be called.
Another writer ties the light to the law instead, and warns that no believer should expect the same:
A believer's face does not shine as the face of an angel, either physically or morally. God gave the law by the arrangement of angels, and it came in with glory on the face of Moses. So I think I can see a moral fitness in the law lighting up the face of Stephen — the man God chose to press home on their consciences their wicked behaviour while under that law.
The light came before the suffering, not after. One writer sees an older pattern in that:
Stephen's face shining was, according to all Jewish patterns, God giving a pledge of glory when He called someone into a place of trial. "The God of glory" appeared to Abraham before he was called out of his country.
Saul of Tarsus, later the apostle Paul, may have been among the watchers. One writer thinks that sight never left him:
But you must remember that Saul also probably saw Stephen's face, like "the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15). He must have watched him "fall asleep" under those cruel stones (Acts 7:60). He must have heard that dying prayer: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." It may be that it was impossible for Saul to forget all this, and that his conscience kept speaking loudly to him.
- Watched — the whole council stared at the prisoner, expecting fear or fury. Instead they saw a face lit up with the light of heaven.
- Given — the light was God's witness to His servant, given at the very moment all eyes were on him. Stephen himself never saw it.
- Answering — they charged him with speaking against the law. The law came by a ministry of angels, so an angel's face standing before them condemned judges who had not kept it.
- Debated — commentators differ over the source of the light: heaven's glory from the One he was about to see, or the glory of the law resting on the man sent to convict them by it.
- Lasting — a pledge of glory given before the trial, and a sight that Saul of Tarsus may never have forgotten.