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.