Acts 6:1–8:40

6:1–7 The Disciples Choose Seven Servants. Anyone who has experienced a growing church, family, or business knows that with growth comes new challenges. The early church faces a good problem: it has grown so much and so fast that taking care of all its members grows increasingly difficult. Funds are available as believers sell their possessions and property and give the proceeds to the apostles, but someone has to distribute the funds. The apostles cannot preach and perform signs and wonders and distribute the money as needed. They are in a situation similar to that of Moses when Jethro came to warn that he was overextended in his multitasking and needed help in governing Israel (Ex. 18:14–23). Jethro advised Moses to choose “able men” (Ex. 18:21) to share the load. Likewise, to accomplish the extended ministry of the gospel in the community, the apostles need help.

The apostles do not appoint helpers themselves but give the responsibility of choosing helpers to the people. They do, however, provide guidance about what sort of man should be chosen to organize the distribution. They must be (1) of good repute, (2) full of the Spirit, and (3) full of wisdom (Acts 6:3). That is, they must be well respected and known among the community, show clear evidence of Spirit-given faith, and know what needs to be done and how to do it. Although their ministry is subordinate to the apostles’, their expected personal requirements are second to none. Later, this model of Christian leadership and community structure will be reflected in the churches (1 Tim. 3:8–10; Titus 2:2–6).

Some interpreters claim that this description of choosing helpers for the apostles is not normative for the later church, arguing that the unique nature of the Jerusalem church sets it apart from that which follows. There are clear differences and also similarities between Jerusalem and the later churches. First, the apostles, chosen by Christ, are the primary leaders in Jerusalem, whereas later churches have pastors chosen by the church—but later in Acts even the Jerusalem church will have elders. Second, although the seven chosen in Acts 6 are not called “deacons,” they are appointed to serve. They are distinct in their primary role from the leaders who preach and teach, just as later deacons will be. Likewise, their personal qualifications will be echoed by those for later deacons (Acts 6:3; 1 Tim. 3:8–13). Unlike later deacons, however, both Stephen and Philip perform works outside the realm of service (Acts 6:8; 8:5–8, 26–40)—although later deacons are not barred from such behavior, they are not expected to perform such activity either.

Thus the major difference between early Jerusalem and the later churches is the presence of the twelve apostles and the seven servants, combined with the fluid nature of the early narrative—things change dramatically after chapter 9.³ Functionally, the roles of leadership in the early chapters are quite similar to those in the later church, even though their designations are different. The offices are not, however, identical. After believers, including apostles, scatter from Jerusalem because of persecution, the church there seems to take on more typical NT characteristics. While the apostles remain, Jerusalem is unique in the history of the NT church.

It bursts on the scene as a result of Pentecost and the Spirit-driven ministry of the apostles. Thus it is best to think of Jerusalem as the birthplace of the NT church, the foundation for the local church and church governance. There is a church in Jerusalem before believers are scattered in chapter 8—but not one that can be duplicated exactly. There can only be one beginning.

Of the seven men appointed, Stephen and Philip have prominent roles in the narrative, whereas the others are not mentioned again. Stephen, one of the Greek-speaking Jews, will soon deliver to the ruling elite a biblical-theological lesson on the realities of the new covenant as fulfillment of Scripture. He will place them squarely in a long history of those who have rejected the very God they claimed to serve—a line of unbelief and unfaithfulness stretching back to the founding of the nation. That a Hellenistic Jew, not a trained rabbi from Israel, delivers such a message is remarkable.

The last man listed is Nicolaus, whom, importantly, Luke points out is a “proselyte of Antioch” (6:8). A proselyte, unlike a “God-fearer,” is a Gentile fully converted to Judaism, keeping the law of Moses and undergoing circumcision. A proselyte takes on the sign of the covenant and becomes a covenant member. He becomes a Jew outwardly as a sign of his inward conversion but is still by race a Gentile. This early believer, appointed as a servant of the followers of Christ, is not a Hebrew, not from one of the twelve tribes, not physically a child of Abraham. He is from Antioch, the place in Acts where Gentiles first believe in Jesus and the launching point for Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, to go to the nations. The diverse makeup of the kingdom is subtly beginning to take shape even in Jerusalem. Before long all subtlety is gone and reality shines through: it is not nationality, race, or any other social or cultural distinction that makes one a Christ-follower, but the Spirit and faith.

As for the apostles, they give themselves fully “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (6:4). There must be no mistake about the fundamental task of Christian ministry, namely, proclamation of the gospel. All else, however necessary, is subordinate to this and flows from it. Prayer in this context of Acts is connected directly to the work of the Spirit and the ministry of the apostles (cf. 1:14; 4:24–30). Prayer accompanies gospel ministry, a pattern set by Jesus himself when, for example, he spent the night in prayer before choosing the twelve disciples (Luke 6:12) or woke up before dawn to pray before extending his Galilean ministry (Mark 1:35). This does not detract from the importance of personal prayer for loved ones, those suffering or in need, or any other legitimate subject, but Luke focuses on the ministry of the apostles, and thus by extension any application of this text should follow the pattern of ministry-related prayer. This pattern points to absolute reliance on God to lead, provide for, protect, and further the effect and spread of the gospel. Nothing underscores our total dependence on God more than prayer, especially in ministry.

Acts 6:7 provides another summary of the flourishing of the gospel (cf. 2:41, 47; 4:4; 6:7; 12:24; 13:49; 19:20) and also serves as a literary transition from Jerusalem to the expansion of the gospel outside Judea. Luke notes particularly that many priests come to faith in Jesus. In light of the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish authorities, it is easy to forget that people in positions of leadership do believe in him, such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (Luke 23:50–51; John 19:38–39; cf. Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43), as well as Saul/Paul (Acts 9). Pharisee believers are present at the Jerusalem council (15:5), and Crispus, ruler of the synagogue in Corinth, believes the gospel (18:8). Priests were descendants of Aaron who lived in various places and made their way from time to time to Jerusalem to fulfill their priestly service—most were not part of the ruling class. Their inclusion in the community of faith demonstrates the reality that believers come from every strata of society.

6:8–15 The First Christian Martyr: Stephen Arrested. From the outset it is clear that Stephen possesses gifts beyond those that equip him to manage the distribution of money. He is “full of grace and power” (v. 8), which in context indicates the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus had promised the apostles (1:8). Stephen performs “wonders and signs” (6:8), as did the apostles. There is no way to know the extent to which this sort of spiritual gifting is common beyond the apostles. But it is clear that signs and wonders serve to accompany the gospel as confirmation of the preached word.

Once again the ministry of the gospel is met with opposition. However, this opposition comes not from Jews in and around the temple but from Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews. His audience includes members of the “synagogue of the Freedmen” and others from opposite sides of the Mediterranean (v. 9). “Freedmen” refers to Jews who at some point had been slaves but have gained their freedom. Present also are Cyrenians and Alexandrians from North Africa and Jews from Cilicia and Asia (modern Turkey). It is difficult to determine whether these are all members of the synagogue of the Freedmen or if multiple synagogues are represented. Whatever the case, these are Jews of the Diaspora, the scattering of Jews to areas outside Judea going back to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles (722 BC and 586 BC).

Despite their zeal for the Jewish faith, these men are no match for Stephen—or rather, they are no match for the Spirit working through him (v. 10). They cannot refute him, but they want to be rid of him, so they “secretly” secure false witnesses for their case (v. 11). The scheme succeeds in getting all of the usual suspects involved—crowds, leaders, and Torah scholars—and they arrest Stephen and bring him to the temple. Ironically, by accusing Stephen of speaking words against the law (v. 13), the false accusers themselves break that very law (Ex. 20:16; cf. Rom. 2:23). Apparently Stephen has shared Jesus’ teaching, for the accusations against him are strikingly similar to those leveled against Jesus (cf. Mark 14:58, 63–64). As with Jesus, Stephen’s teaching is misconstrued, taken out of context, and also simply misunderstood.

Luke records how the council “saw that his face was like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15). This likely refers to a calm, unaggressive expression, the opposite of what might be expected of someone facing false, perhaps deadly, charges. In the OT, after an angel appears to Samson’s mother, she tells her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome” (Judg. 13:6). Luke is perhaps alluding also to the face of Moses, shining with glory when he comes down from meeting with God (Ex. 34:29; cf. 2 Cor. 3:13). Jesus at his transfiguration likewise has an unearthly appearance (Luke 9:29; cf. Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). This biblical imagery communicates the presence and power of God in Stephen through the Holy Spirit.⁴

7:1–53 The First Christian Martyr: Stephen’s Speech. This speech, the longest in Acts, begins in answer to a simple question: “Are these things so?” (v. 1). Stephen never answers “yes” or “no” to the question; he never defends himself against his accusers. Instead he launches into a careful appropriation and interpretation of Israel’s history, beginning with Abraham and ending with the murder of Jesus. As with Peter’s earlier sermons, Stephen shows how the Law and Prophets point to Christ, as Jesus began teaching the disciples on the Emmaus road (Luke 24). Stephen is quite selective, and there are too many theological, exegetical, and thematic issues to sort through here. But a few fundamental, often recurring, themes stand out.

First is God’s sovereign choice of his people. Second, but no less important, is the promise and fulfillment theme that runs through the entire speech. Promise and fulfillment is arguably the most fundamental interpretive paradigm linking the OT and NT and is the driving element in Stephen’s speech. The third theme is God’s salvation of his people, and, as always, biblical salvation is linked to judgment—the two go hand in hand.⁵ The fourth theme is Israel’s rejection of God and his actions on their behalf. The theme of rejection carries with it the related aspects of unbelief, rebellion, and unfaithfulness. Finally we see the theme of the temple, one of the main issues in Stephen’s contention with his accusers. Rather than recount or restate the entire speech, the commentary will move through it by focusing on these themes and the key points of each of its four major sections.

7:2–8 Stephen begins with Abraham, the father of Israel, who was just another man living in the land of the Chaldeans when God revealed himself to him. Stephen starts with God’s choice of Abraham. This is not a mere history lesson, and he is not telling them something they do not already know. Abraham’s home in the land of the Chaldeans is important, however—Israel’s experience with God did not begin with a temple or even in the land of Canaan. God called Abraham while he was part of what we call “the nations,” before the nation of Israel even existed. From the land of the Chaldeans Abraham went to Haran and then finally to the land of Canaan. Still, God did not grant Abraham his inheritance there, “not even a foot’s length” (v. 5). What Abraham did receive was a promise to him and his children (see Genesis 12), even though Abraham yet had no children. The rest of Israel’s history is the story of the unfolding of that promise. The fulfillment of the promise of land would have to wait four hundred years while Abraham’s children languished in slavery. God would eventually save them from slavery and judge their captors and bring Abraham’s descendants to the land in which they would worship him. To seal this promise, God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision—the covenant mark of the people of God. This short section of Stephen’s address ends with a confirmation that God indeed began to fulfill his word to Abraham, who bore Isaac and marked him with the covenant sign. Isaac in turn was the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of twelve sons, the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel. So the story of Israel begins with God’s call and promise to Abraham, but the story does not end with him.

7:9–16 The next section of Stephen’s speech highlights the experience of Joseph (see Genesis 37–50). The account of Joseph begins with a note of treachery: his brothers, patriarchs of Israel, sell him into slavery (Acts 7:9). The history of Israel’s unfaithfulness, a theme of Stephen’s address, begins here. The next few verses are a short commentary on Joseph’s well-known words to his brothers: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Gen. 50:20). In Egypt, God showed favor to Joseph and caused him to prosper. The underlying theme is God’s promise to Abraham: Joseph, persecuted by his brothers, becomes their savior, bringing them to Egypt to escape famine, and through him the promise continues on. In this part of the narrative, the nations (here Egypt) become a place of refuge and salvation for God’s people. Around seventy descendants of Abraham go into Egypt (Acts 7:14). There, not in the Promised Land, they multiply and become a nation. By the time they gather around the tabernacle in the wilderness they number six hundred thousand men, plus women and children (Numbers 1–2).⁶

Questions have been raised concerning the names and places mentioned by Stephen. He says that the patriarchs “were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem” (Acts 7:16). In Genesis, however, Abraham buys a field in Canaan from the Hittites (Gen. 23:16). It is Jacob who buys the land in Shechem (Gen. 33:19) where Joseph is later buried (Josh. 24:32). It is important to note that in Stephen’s speech the story is conflated and summarized. Luke is not writing a biblical history paper for a seminary assignment but is paring down and shaping the history to that which is needed for his purposes. This is common among NT writers, who rarely tell the whole story because there is neither space or need to do so. Indeed, this is true of any historian. To tell the complete history of the Thirty Years War, for instance (to select one example at random), would take (at least) thirty years! No one would want to read that book. This observation does not cast any doubt on the historical reliability of Scripture but is simply an acknowledgement that biblical narrative is not a blow-by-blow account of history. A good dose of common-sense reflection on the text and context, including how the biblical authors tell their stories and recount history (in a way not all that different from what we do ourselves), is the first and best tool for reading and interpreting biblical narrative.

In Genesis 12:6, just after God calls him, Abraham travels through the exact place Stephen mentions (though quite some time passes between when he leaves Haran and when he comes to the land). As he goes through what will later be part of Israel, God appears to him and promises him that land, and there Abraham builds an altar (Gen. 12:7). Long before Jacob buys the piece of land, Abraham stakes a claim there. Jacob later negotiates for that same piece of land. It is not far-fetched to think that Stephen and other first-century Jews knew more about the story than what they read in Genesis, and it could be that Abraham himself bought the land originally. It is also possible that Stephen is using the name of Abraham but referencing the patriarchs generally.⁷ The first explanation—Abraham himself bought it, and Stephen knows of the purchase—seems best, but whatever the case, this text does not present a problem without reasonable (and commonsense) solutions. In any case, the conclusion of the Joseph section of Stephen’s address is plain: the patriarchs, including Jacob, all die outside the land, so the story of the promise goes on.

7:17–34 The section concerning Moses (vv. 17–43) is the longest in the speech, and Stephen’s themes continue and expand throughout it. The narrative of Moses’ life up until the burning bush is told in three sections each separated by forty years. Verses 17–22 take place in Egypt; verses 23–29 describe the journey from Egypt to Midian; and verses 30–34 narrate the Sinai years. With Moses comes the fulfillment of the promise, at least in terms of people and land. Stephen’s account of Moses begins, as with Joseph, with a comment concerning persecution. It escalates from Joseph’s being sold into slavery to the Egyptian king’s plan to kill the babies of Israel by abandonment (v. 19). As in Acts, from persecution comes salvation, this time through the birth of Moses. God’s choice is again at the forefront, as Stephen notes that Moses “was beautiful in God’s sight” (v. 20). He makes the point that Moses was protected for three months, and he recounts the story of Moses’ rescue by Pharaoh’s daughter and his subsequent Egyptian education. Moses’ Egyptian education is not mentioned explicitly in the OT, but it is possible that Stephen is familiar with Jewish traditions that support the idea.⁸ Stephen is not simply providing background information about Moses that his hearers do not already know but is underscoring a part of the story that no one would have scripted—a man raised and educated in Pharaoh’s house was God’s choice to deliver the Israelites from slavery.

In the second section (vv. 23–29), Stephen retells the incident of Moses killing an Egyptian for beating an Israelite (Ex. 2:11–12) to show that the relationship between Moses and the people of Israel was strained from the very beginning. In the Exodus account, when Moses confronts an Israelite for hitting a fellow Hebrew the day after Moses has killed an Egyptian, the man retorts, “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” (Ex. 2:14, cited by Stephen in Acts 7:27–28). Interestingly, Stephen adds that Moses thought the Israelites would know that “God was giving them salvation by his hand” (v. 25). The account in Exodus does not mention Moses’ understanding that God was working through him, but, according to Stephen, Moses did have a sense of God’s calling. The Israelites, however, rejected Moses’ involvement, and he ran for his life. Because of this rejection, Moses “became an exile in the land of Midian” (v. 29), setting up the next part of the Moses narrative.

The third section of the story (vv. 30–34) tells of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush. Stephen simply states that Moses was in Midian forty years. This number, whether in years or in days, is frequently linked to significant salvation events. For instance, Moses spends forty years in the wilderness before God sends him back to Egypt. Israel would wander around the desert forty years before entering the Land of Promise (v. 36). Much later, Jesus would spend forty days in the wilderness, taking his place as the true Israel, before coming back to the land and announcing the kingdom of God (Mark 1:12–15). Here in Acts, Jesus spends forty days with the disciples, preparing them for his departure and for Pentecost (Acts 1:3–5).

Most important for Stephen’s purposes is what happens at the end of Moses’ forty years. Stephen’s hearers are reminded that the revelation that began the most significant event in Israel’s history took place outside the land (as was the case with Abraham). This is the covenant God who had made a promise to Abraham and intended to keep it. Stephen includes God’s telling Moses to take off his shoes “for the place where you are standing is holy ground” (v. 33). It is easy to pass over this as simply part of the story, but Stephen includes it to show that it is God who makes a place holy. Wherever God is, that place is holy, and he is not limited to any one place. Comments concerning the temple started this trial in motion, and later Stephen’s word about the temple will lead to his death. The groundwork is laid for the climax of Stephen’s speech, in which he will warn his listeners that they are gravely wrong in regard to the temple.

7:35–43 The theme of rejection takes center stage in the next several verses, as Stephen focuses on how Israel’s rejection of God—by rejecting Moses—began right in the midst of the greatest event of salvation in the OT. The people rejected Moses as “a ruler and a judge,” but God made him “both ruler and redeemer” (v. 35). The phrase “by the hand of the angel” in regard to the burning bush is not to deny that God himself confronted Moses, as Stephen says in verse 31 and as recounted in the Exodus narrative. Angels served as intermediaries between God and Moses both at the burning bush and in the giving of the law (v. 53; cf. Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). This in no way diminishes the revelation of God to Moses or to Israel. The constant refrain “this Moses/man” and similar phrases emphasize the people’s rejection. Stephen is saying in effect, “Moses, the one you claim to follow—this is the very one your fathers rejected.” The point will soon be clear: just as the Israelites rejected Moses, so they rejected God once again by rejecting Jesus.

The salvation brought by Moses was accompanied by “wonders and signs” (v. 36). The parallel with Stephen’s day is hard to miss: though Moses performed signs and wonders, the Israelites ultimately rejected him, just as the rulers and leaders reject the signs and wonders performed by the followers of Jesus—and just as they rejected the same from Jesus. It was this same Moses who promised that another prophet like himself would come (v. 37), the implication being that the prophet to come was Jesus, and they rejected him too. In verse 38, Luke uses the word ekklēsia, translated here as “congregation,” in reference to Israel.⁹ This Greek term for “assembly” or “congregation” is commonly used for Israel in the Septuagint. Given that this is the common word for “church” in the NT, the parallel is seen between the place of Moses in the assembly of Israel and the place of Jesus in the new covenant assembly.¹⁰ This same Moses also gave the divine law to Israel (“living oracles”; v. 38; cf. Deut. 32:47; Rom. 3:2). However, in spite of all of these gifts, the Israelites began to think that life was not so bad back in Egypt, and they turned to idolatry (Acts 7:39–40).

The climax of Israel’s early rejection of God was the worship of the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the law (Exodus 32). If any OT event attests to the fact that God’s promise to Abraham could not be fulfilled by Israel on its own, it was the pagan idolatry festival at the foot of Sinai. Two words sum up the incident: idolatry and works. As Stephen puts it, they “offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands” (Acts 7:41). In the face of God’s gift and grace in the exodus from Egypt, they turned to a homemade idol.

In response, “God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven” (v. 42). Stephen compresses Israel’s history by citing God’s verdict over the nation in Amos 5:25–27. In the exodus narrative, God punished the people severely, but because of Moses’ intercession and God’s promise to Abraham, the Lord gave Moses his word that he would continue to go before them into the Promised Land and drive out their enemies. The Amos quote is from several centuries later, but Stephen connects it to the wilderness idolatry. The worship of the golden calf began a pattern of long-standing idolatry, and by quoting Amos, Stephen implies that Israel was headed for exile in Babylon right from their leaving Egypt.

Stephen’s comment that God “gave them over to worship the host of heaven” is similar to Paul’s comment concerning the sins of the Gentiles: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves” (Rom. 1:24). In both texts idolatry is the sin that brings the ultimate punishment of God, giving human beings over to follow their darkest and most inhuman desire: to worship things other than him.

The quote from Amos also summarizes this history of idolatry, highlighting particular instances of Israel’s worshiping other gods. Moloch was a Canaanite god, but the identity of Rephan is difficult to know, though possibly it is a reference to an Egyptian god. Stephen is citing some Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, accounting for the difference readers will find when comparing Acts to Amos. Also, in the Hebrew OT, God says he would send the people in exile beyond Damascus, which the Greek translator cited by Stephen interprets as “exile beyond Babylon” (Acts 7:43). These translation issues aside, the message of Amos in both the Hebrew OT and the Greek translation cited by Stephen is clear: altogether, from the golden calf to life in the land, the history of Israel is marked by a rejection of the God who had made a promise to their forefathers.

7:44–50 Moving from the Moses section of the speech, Stephen compares tent and temple. The “tent of witness” (v. 44), or tabernacle, was designed and ordered by God and was part of Israel’s life until the time of King David. The period to which Stephen refers was the era of the united kingdom—the two halves of which were the initial target Jesus assigned to the disciples to evangelize (see 1:8). David desired to build the temple, but it was Solomon whom God allowed to do so. Stephen does not so much criticize either the building or existence of the temple but instead condemns his audience’s perspective on the temple. In all their veneration and zeal for the temple, they have missed completely the God who they presume dwells there. Joining with Solomon (1 Kings 8:27), Stephen reminds his listeners that “the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands” (Acts 7:48), and then he quotes Isaiah 66:1–2 to show the impossibility of containing God, the creator and king of all, in a physical or permanent building. The people’s concern is earthly, but God’s throne is in heaven. Readers will remember that from the beginning of Acts, Luke has established that Jesus is now ruling and reigning from heaven. This last quote sets up the final part of Stephen’s speech.

7:51–53 Borrowing OT language, Stephen calls his hearers “stiff-necked” and “uncircumcised in heart and ears” (v. 51). In other words, “You just do not get it at all, not in the slightest bit.” The language is altogether justified. They also “resist the Holy Spirit,” evidence of which has piled up since chapter 2. The entire accusation and condemnation amounts to this: “You are unfaithful, unbelieving, and do not know God.” They are no different than their fathers, who killed God’s prophets. Stephen is exactly in line with Jesus, who condemned unbelieving Jews for the same thing (see Luke 13:34; Matt. 23:31–32, 37). The final straw was the crowning achievement of centuries of unbelief: they killed the Messiah. This charge, taken up by Peter several times in his sermons, marks the final chapter in the old covenant. This covenant, and the temple and law that went with it, have been eclipsed.

Several more speeches follow in Acts, but Stephen’s marks the final verdict on the old covenant, a verdict that will be repeated throughout. Stephen began with the story of their father Abraham and brought the narrative to the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham in Jesus. The sections of his speech describing Abraham and Jesus are like bookends, with the story of Israel’s old covenant experience in the middle. From the rejection of Moses (vv. 25, 35) to the murder of Jesus, the story of the old covenant comes to an end. God’s choice of Abraham and his promises to him have reached their appointed end in Jesus of Nazareth.

7:54–8:3 The First Christian Martyr: Stephen Martyred and Believers Scattered. With his final comment, Stephen brings his hearers to a breaking point. Their teeth-grinding and rage turn into full-fledged mob rule when Stephen, “full of the Holy Spirit” (the same Spirit they reject), declares he sees Jesus “standing at the right hand of God” (7:55–56). This is another dramatic event in which heaven—God’s realm and domain—breaks into the earthly realm. Other such instances include the baptism of Jesus, his transfiguration, and his ascension. In this scene, Jesus is standing rather than sitting at God’s right hand (Ps. 110:1; cf. Acts 2:34). It is often suggested that, in this way, Jesus is standing as a witness to Stephen’s speech and impending martyrdom. The crowd gets up, too, and rushes at Stephen in a frenzy. There is debate over whether this is an official stoning or out-of-control mob violence. It is both—even if the council does not direct the action, Stephen is standing before them, and it is impossible to think that the mob is doing anything the council wishes to stop. Some council members are likely part of the mob. The catch is that, as with Jesus (John 18:31), the council cannot legally put anyone to death. They are clearly complicit in Stephen’s death.

Stephen is taken outside the city (ironically, in keeping with the law; Lev. 24:14–16) and stoned to death. A yet-unknown young man named Saul, who is serving as the coat checker, looks on with approval (Acts 7:58; 8:1). Readers of the NT know that this is just the beginning, the ironic start, of Saul’s story, and he himself will have reason later in life to recall this day (Acts 22:20). Stephen’s death is as remarkable as his life and his sermon. In the midst of agony, he echoes his Savior. From the cross Jesus cried, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46) as he died, and just before that he had called out on behalf of his executioners, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Likewise Stephen calls for the Lord to “receive my spirit” and not to hold his enemies’ sin against them (Acts 7:59–60). His death is a model for all Christians facing persecution. Luke shows the difference between a desperate, enraged defense of condemned tradition and the strength and contentment of rest and peace in Christ.

What began as a rebuke and increased to beating and imprisonment now escalates to execution, and a new chapter in the Acts story begins. The methods of wiping out the Jesus movement have a reverse effect—it spreads. Things probably look less positive to the believers then than they do to us now, but Luke shows that what men meant for evil God means for good. Stephen’s murder whets the appetite for those who wish to end this Jesus nonsense once and for all. Persecution breaks out all over Jerusalem that day, and it has the most unlooked-for outcome. The Christians go through Judea and Samaria to get away from the persecution, and in so doing move to part two of Jesus’ command: to be witnesses in those places (1:8).

The following two verses serve as a transition from one major section of Acts to another as the story of Stephen ends, launching the spread of the gospel according to Jesus’ plan in 1:8. They also further introduce Saul, who will become the main character for much of the rest of Acts.

Saul goes from looking after coats at Stephen’s murder to “ravaging the church,” forcing his way into Christian homes and taking people off to prison (8:3; cf. 9:13). In our day we would say he was “radicalized”: he hated the followers of Jesus and wanted to see the movement wiped out. As an apostle, Paul himself never forgot his past, mentioning it in his speeches in Acts and in his letters (Acts 22:4–5; 26:10; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13, 23; Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13). It is important not to conceive of Paul as faithful according to the old covenant. Before his conversion, Paul was not a faithful Jew. One cannot be faithful while rejecting the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. However, Paul does highlight the unexpected nature of God’s way of carrying out his plan for the world. From choosing an idol worshiper in Ur for the fulfillment of his ultimate promises and an Egyptian-educated man in Pharaoh’s court to save Israel from slavery, to raising up imperfect judges who keep the nation afloat during a horrible era of apostasy and suffering and a boy who kills a giant with a slingshot and becomes king—not to mention coming as a carpenter from Nazareth who tells people the greatest thing they can become is a servant and who dies, cursed, on a cross—no one but God would write this script.

8:4–8 Judea and Samaria and Beyond: Philip Goes to Samaria. Persecution pushes the early church on its way. As they go, they preach the Word. Philip appears in the list of the seven chosen to take care of the practical concerns of the Hellenistic widows in Jerusalem. He is named second, after Stephen (6:5). The direction “down to” (8:5) is fairly common regardless of the direction people travel from Jerusalem, as it refers to the city’s higher elevation rather than to a direction on a map. Philip goes to the third place named by Jesus in 1:8, Samaria. The Samaritans were more or less half-Jews living in and around the former capital of the northern kingdom. Some of their ancestors settled there during the Babylonian exile, and when the Jews returned, they stayed. Over time they became a distinct ethnic group. The Samaritans followed a version of the Torah and had their own temple on Mount Gerizim (John 4).

Between the Samaritans and the Jews, there was little love lost. During Jesus’ ministry he and the disciples encountered much opposition, but when some Samaritans rejected Jesus, James and John asked, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (Luke 9:54). Elsewhere in the Gospels, the Samaritans play a fairly regular, if unexpected, role. The parable of the good Samaritan shows what it means to be a neighbor after a priest and a Levite pass by a half-dead man on the road to Jericho but a Samaritan does not (Luke 10). When Jesus heals ten lepers on his way to Jerusalem, only one returns to thank him, and he is a Samaritan (Luke 17:15–16). In John 4 Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well, teaching her about the gift of the Spirit and calling her out on her adultery. Despite all the times Jesus refuses to be identified as the Messiah (or at least with popular ideas of what that means), or gives vague responses when asked about it, he straightforwardly tells this Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah (John 4:26). Now in Acts, after persecution has driven most of the believers out of Jerusalem, Samaritans accept the gospel gladly. Like Stephen, Philip is empowered to do signs and wonders. Also as with Stephen, the signs he performs—casting out spirits and healing the paralyzed and lame—are not independent gifts but rather witnesses to the message he preaches about Jesus (Acts 8:6–7).

8:9–25 Judea and Samaria and Beyond: Peter and John Go to Samaria. The Samaritan Simon has made a name for himself through the practice of magic and has likely earned a living doing so. He also thinks highly of himself and his talents. Magic, sorcery, divination, and the like are roundly condemned in both the OT and the NT (Lev. 19:26, 31; Deut. 18:10; Mal. 3:5; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). In many parts of the world, such manipulation of evil powers to achieve some desired benefit for oneself or others or to wreak havoc in another’s life is commonplace and is often a serious threat.

It is hard to say exactly what the Samaritans mean when they say, “This man is the power of God that is called Great” (Acts 8:10), but it is reasonable to assume that Simon’s audiences, probably prompted by his own claims, believe Simon’s powers to be from God. Things begin to change, however, when Philip comes to town with his own signs and wonders and proclaims Jesus. The Samaritans embrace the message and, like their Jerusalem counterparts, are baptized. For the first time, public confession and identification of believers with the death and resurrection of Jesus occurs outside Israel proper. In what looks like a dramatic conversion, Simon the magician not only believes and receives baptism but starts to follow Philip as well. Luke adds that what really gets Simon’s attention are the “signs and great miracles” done by Philip (v. 13). Just as the Samaritans were “amazed” by Simon’s magic (v. 11), so Simon is “amazed” by what Philip can do (v. 13). This sets the scene for his coming encounter with Peter and John.

The apostles are still the authority in the church at this time. Although Philip does signs and wonders, preaches the gospel effectively, and baptizes those who believe, Peter and John set out for Samaria when they hear what has happened (v. 14). They pray that the Samaritans would receive the Spirit because, even though they were baptized in Jesus’ name, the Spirit “had not yet fallen on any of them” (vv. 15–16). At Pentecost, the offer was to repent and be baptized in order to receive the Spirit (2:38), but the Samaritans believed and were baptized yet did not receive the Spirit. Luke offers no explanation but tells the story as though nothing is strange about this occurrence. God waits on the arrival of his appointed apostles to impart the Spirit to the Samaritans. No exact pattern has yet been established, for in a few verses an Ethiopian will believe and be baptized, and there is no account of the apostles’ going to him (and no account of his receiving the Spirit, either, for that matter), and later the apostles will encounter people who have believed and received the Spirit apart from their direct ministry.

Again Luke presents a descriptive event that is not meant to imply a pattern or prescribe a continual practice. The provisional nature of Acts, particularly its early chapters, cannot be set aside. We must look for patterns but also acknowledge when those patterns change. Furthermore, the emphasis we put on order and sequence is not always an issue in Acts. Salvation’s components, not its exact order, is the issue. In Acts, the general pattern is that believers receive the Spirit and are baptized. That is the rule, but there are exceptions. A few times, believers are baptized, then receive the Spirit, but there is no indication of such a pattern in the rest of the NT. In every case, only believers receive both the Spirit and baptism—the one constant is faith. In the narrative, faith comes first. Discussions about regeneration preceding or following faith are for a later century.

The presence of Peter and John is for the authentication of the event. In this first instance of belief in Jesus outside a Jewish community, the presence of the apostles at the giving of the Spirit stands as proof positive that the new covenant is open to all who believe in Jesus. Everyone who believes receives the Spirit, and no amount of background or ancestry guarantees or excludes anyone from the covenant. Later, apostolic witness by Peter to the reception of the Spirit among the Gentiles will be the most important evidence presented to the Jerusalem council (ch. 15).

Simon Magus’s¹¹ heart is revealed when the apostles lay hands on the believers (v. 17), which evidently produces some perceptible display of the Spirit’s presence. Simon requests the opportunity to purchase the power to convey the Spirit as well (vv. 18–19). Peter is clear in his response to Simon, in the process revealing the nature of Simon’s supposed belief. His most pointed comment comes in verse 21, where he tells Simon he has “neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.” “Part” and “lot” are biblical terms used in reference to an inheritance or a share (cf. Neh. 2:20). Simon has no place among the believers, nor a future in the kingdom of God, as things stand. The phrases “gall of bitterness” and “bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:23) reflect OT language referring to idolatry, temptation, and sin, as well as the experience to which they lead (Deut. 29:18; 32:32; Prov. 5:22; Lam. 3:19). Peter also tells Simon to repent and pray for forgiveness so the Lord might possibly forgive him.

Taken separately, these comments from Peter are devastating, though in certain contexts they could be said to a believer. But together the call to repent and ask forgiveness, Simon’s wrong heart, the denial of his share among believers together, and Peter’s rebuke, “May your silver perish with you” (Acts 8:20), lead to the conclusion that Simon was not a genuine believer. His reaction to the Spirit and his motivation stand in stark contrast to those who have believed up to this point. Simon is not like those who believed at Pentecost, those added to the church after later proclamation, or those who believed after signs and wonders by the apostles, nor does he display the unified and other-focused character of the Christian community so evident in the narrative. However uninformed or ignorant he is, he is nevertheless seeking the gift of the Spirit for personal gain, a chance to have and display even more power. It is possible that he merely wants to confer the Spirit to believers out of good motives, but it is highly unlikely, and such a conclusion is naive and runs against the flow of the narrative. Simon is “amazed” at Philip, just as the Samaritans were “amazed” by the magic he performed (vv. 11, 13), he offers the apostles money, and he asks for “this power” as though the power belongs to the apostles and they can give or sell it to whomever they chose (v. 19). Simon does not act like a believer, and Peter does not treat him like one.

The Simon narrative ends, however, on an unresolved note. He asks the disciples to pray that what Peter says of him would not come true (v. 24), but readers are left to wonder what becomes of Simon. He seems remorseful, but what Luke includes sounds more like fear of what might happen than like confession and repentance. False believers have participated, and still do, in Christian communities since the apostolic era. The evidence leans toward Simon’s being one of the first such false believers. Even in the midst of a dramatic move in the trajectory of the gospel, an obstacle arises, a reminder that the church is moving toward the fulfillment of the kingdom but has not yet reached it fully. Gospel successes go hand in hand with misunderstandings, false belief, and potential heresy. Even the best of times are encumbered by ideas and forces that threaten the kingdom. This pattern is borne out in the rest of Acts.

In the larger narrative framework extending from the ascension of Jesus, the flow of the narrative of witnesses going to the nations continues. Not only do Samaritans believe as a result of Philip’s ministry; Peter and John also preach in Samaritan villages as they make their way back to Jerusalem. They take advantage of every opportunity.

As this narrative ends there is also the inkling of a discernable pattern established over time in Acts. Before leaving, the disciples stay to witness and teach further the “word of the Lord” (v. 25). As the gospel begins to spread into new areas, particularly predominantly Gentile areas, where biblical knowledge is nonexistent, the apostles frequently travel back to places they evangelized earlier. They not only reach them with the gospel but make great efforts to teach them as well.¹²

8:26–40 Judea and Samaria and Beyond: The Ethiopian Eunuch. Though there is no reported plan (such as a map) for the early Christians’ taking the gospel to the world, here is another example of God supernaturally orchestrating the mission. An angel appears to Philip and tells him to head south on the road to Gaza, near the border with Egypt. Later Paul will have a vision calling him to Macedonia. These are special acts of God to fulfill the mission of 1:8. We do not know how far down the road Philip goes, but Gaza is fairly remote, a last stop before going into a desert, something like traveling in the American West and seeing a sign that says, “Last Gas for 200 Miles.” It becomes immediately clear that Philip is sent for a very specific task—why go to Gaza otherwise?

Philip meets an Ethiopian eunuch who is on his way back home after visiting Jerusalem to worship. Eunuchs were common court officials in the ancient world, and this one, a treasurer in the court of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, also happens to have a particular devotion to the Jewish religion. As a eunuch (an emasculated servant), he could not become a full convert to Judaism, so he appears to be something like a “God-fearer” (cf. comment on 10:1–8), but Luke, obviously familiar with that term, does not identify him as such. The Ethiopian is one step further removed from ethnic Judaism than the Samaritans and is thus another example of the widening orbit of the gospel.

Still under the Spirit’s guidance, Philip rushes over to the eunuch’s chariot, finds him reading aloud (common in the ancient world) from Isaiah, and asks him if he understands what he is reading (8:30). “How can I, unless someone guides me?” is his now-famous reply (v. 31). This text is overflowing with providential events. Philip is led to a certain place, a man is reading Scripture, he asks for help understanding it, and he is reading from what is probably the best-known OT text related to Jesus, Isaiah 53. Specifically, he is reading Isaiah 53:7–8, which speaks of the unjust suffering of the servant of Yahweh. Prompted by the eunuch’s question, Philip starts with that text and goes on to tell him the “good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35).

Philip opens up the story of the OT as it focuses on Jesus. This is the primary interpretive scheme used by the apostles and disciples in Acts. They learn it from Jesus, who began teaching this way on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:13–27. Over and over again in Acts, the OT story is retold by its defining center, Jesus Christ. Peter does so in his early sermons, Stephen traces a particular OT history to the rejection of Jesus, and later Paul will show from the OT that Jesus is indeed the Messiah (Acts 17:1–4; 28:23). Very early on, Christians begin using the grand narrative of Scripture to open the good news to their hearers. We tend to think of and read the Bible, not surprisingly, according to verses and chapters, often focusing on the trees rather than on the forest. There is clearly an important place for reading the Bible that way, but Scripture is more than a sourcebook of verse collections; at its most important level, it is a story of everything, particularly of God’s creation and redemption through Jesus.¹³

The Isaiah text read by the eunuch is particularly interesting in light of its context. Isaiah 53 focuses on the suffering servant, while Isaiah 54 promises a future time of unmatched blessing when the children of the barren one (Israel) “will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities” (Isa. 54:3). The chapter points to a new covenant, in which “my covenant of peace shall not be removed” (Isa. 54:10) and “children shall be taught by the Lord” (Isa. 54:13). In the end, God declares, “In righteousness you shall be established” (Isa. 54:14). In the NT context, as seen in Acts already, these promises are not limited to ethnic Israel but will be fulfilled along with the promise to the nations.

The following chapter, Isaiah 55, is a call to take part in the great work of God, connected directly to the promised “word” of God that accomplishes everything he intends (Isa. 55:11 is one of the best backgrounds for understanding John 1:1). And this is all cast in a vision of a new creation (Isa. 55:12–13). Thus there is a servant who will atone for his people (Isaiah 53), a new covenant (Isaiah 54), and a new creation (Isaiah 55).¹⁴ Then in Isaiah 56 we read promises to outsiders, who will be fully accepted in the days that are coming. Specifically, the text names foreigners and eunuchs. It is worth citing a large portion:

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,

“The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;

and let not the eunuch say,

“Behold, I am a dry tree.”

For thus says the Lord:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,

who choose the things that please me

and hold fast my covenant,

I will give in my house and within my walls

a monument and a name

better than sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name

that shall not be cut off.

“And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,

to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,

and to be his servants,

everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it,

and holds fast my covenant—

these I will bring to my holy mountain,

and make them joyful in my house of prayer;

their burnt offerings and their sacrifices

will be accepted on my altar;

for my house shall be called a house of prayer

for all peoples.”

The Lord GOD,

who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares,

“I will gather yet others to him

besides those already gathered.” (Isa. 56:3–8)

What richness is added through context! Isaiah promises a time in which foreigners and eunuchs will receive an eternal inheritance and an equal place in the house of the Lord along the outcasts of Israel. This not only is important for shedding light on the narrative of Philip and the eunuch; it also opens up greater understanding of this transition in Acts from Jerusalem to the nations, not least with the impending conversion of the apostle to the Gentiles.

In his description of Jesus, Philip evidently mentions Christian baptism, for as soon as they come upon water, the eunuch asks to be baptized. The text implies faith on the part of the eunuch, of which Philip is evidently sure, and therefore he baptizes him. There is no mention of the eunuch receiving the Spirit, but we can assume that he does. This is perhaps the best way to track the baptismal pattern in Acts: the basic salvation event includes faith, repentance, the Spirit, and baptism. The baptism question looms large in Acts, and we will return to it again in chapter 10.

With the eunuch’s baptism, the kingdom takes a crucial step toward the nations. The Spirit’s primary role in orchestrating the movement takes dramatic form at the end of chapter 8. The Spirit immediately removes Philip up the coast to Azotus (Acts 8:39–40). Why the Spirit directs Philip to trek down toward Gaza but then supernaturally transports him away is a mystery; he simply does.