Acts 6:8–7:53

Original Meaning

Stephen’s Speech (7:1–53)

STEPHEN’S FAMOUS SPEECH has been called his “defense,” but, as Bruce points out, “it is not a speech for the defense in the forensic sense of the term.” That is, it is not “calculated to secure an acquittal before the Sanhedrin.” Rather, it is “a defense of pure Christianity as God’s appointed way of worship.”15 It uses Scripture as a base, which is also the source of authority of Stephen’s audience. It is, as we will see, a case of true biblical contextualization.

Stephen argues his points from Israel’s history as recorded in the Jewish Scriptures. He stresses three major themes.

1. The activity of God is not confined to the geographical land of Israel. God spoke to Abraham in Mesopotamia (7:2–3) and Haran (7:4). He blessed Joseph in Egypt (7:9–16). He spoke to Moses in the desert near Sinai during the incident of the burning bush (7:30–34). He performed wonders and signs in Egypt, the Red Sea, and the desert (7:36), and he also gave his people the law at Mount Sinai (7:38).

2. Worship acceptable to God is not confined to the Jerusalem temple. The burning bush was holy ground, and Moses had to remove his sandals there (7:33). Moses encountered God in Mount Sinai and was given living words (7:38). The tabernacle was a suitable place of worship for the people of Israel (7:44–46). Stephen concludes that “everything necessary for pure worship was available to the people in the wilderness, before they ever entered the Holy land.”16 The Jewish Scriptures testify that God does not dwell in houses made by human beings (7:48–50). Actually, as Bruce says, “Solomon’s action [of building the temple] is deprecated” (see 7:47–50). As “the Most High does not live in houses made by men” (7:48), Stephen is implying that “to announce the suppression or destruction of the temple was not to commit blasphemy or sacrilege against God, because God was independent of any temple.”17

3. The Jews have constantly rejected God’s representatives. Joseph was rejected by the patriarchs (7:9). Moses was rejected when he tried to intervene in a quarrel between two Jews (7:26–29), and yet this Moses was sent as Israel’s deliverer (7:35). The message of Moses they rejected and instead erected a golden calf (7:39–43). Stephen climaxes his message in vigorous language by claiming that Israelite history is a history of rejection (7:51–53). It is possible that Stephen has to end his talk abruptly at this point because his audience has become so restive.

There is little about Jesus and a lot about Moses in this speech. This is understandable since the charge against Stephen is about his rejecting Moses’ teachings (6:11, 14). Stephen points to one significant thing that Moses said to the Israelites about Jesus: “God will send you a prophet like me from your own people” (7:37). The other two references to Jesus are both in verse 52: The Jews “even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One,” and they “betrayed and murdered him.”

Stephen’s final words of accusation (7:51–53) may make us wonder what has happened to his angelic face. After all, when we think of an angel, we think of a sweet, gentle person who has no place for wrath and judgment. This idea, however, does not come from Scripture, for some of the angels in the Bible are agents of judgment.17 Stephen is like Christ here. Though Jesus radiated the love of God as no one did, he also expressed God’s wrath against hypocrisy and sham, especially in his denunciation of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:13–23).

The ministry of Stephen helped blaze new trails for the gospel, which has earned him the title “radical.” He opened the door theologically for the world mission of the church. We do not know whether he himself realized this, but he freed Christianity from the temple and therefore from Judaism. A short time later the church concluded that one does not have to be Jewish first in order to be Christian. Though Stephen ended his life an apparent failure, though he did not live to see the fruit of his theologizing, God revealed later that his ministry had borne great fruit. The trail he blazed was later followed by Paul—the one who approved of his death (8:1) and kept the clothes of those who stoned him (7:58), but who later became the apostle to the Gentiles. The link between Stephen and the writer of the letter to the Hebrews has also been discussed much.18 Stephen is also considered the precursor of the later Christian apologists, especially those who defended Christianity against Judaism.

Bridging Contexts

BALANCED CHRISTIANITY. LUKE must surely have intended his readers to take special note of the character of Stephen, for he gives us so many glimpses of his character and ministry in chapters 6–7. We should seek to emulate these features. Interestingly, though he is known as a radical because he fearlessly blazed new trails for the gospel, when we look at his personality and character as portrayed in Acts, what stands out is his biblical balance. While we may think of a balanced Christian life as an insipid life of moderation in everything we do, a biblically balanced life is a radical life, where we follow a revolutionary Lord in everything we do. Balance refers to totality in obedience, not moderation. Thus, we will look at Stephen’s life and ministry to learn how to have combinations of scriptural characteristics that usually do not seem to go together.

In our study of Peter in Acts 3:1–26, we looked at the phenomenon of a miracle-working apologist, as Stephen also was. Related to that is Stephen’s combination of inspiration and wisdom. This combination is well expressed in Luke’s comment that his opponents “could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke” (6:10). On the one hand, this inspired wisdom is a gift of God; on the other, it comes from the application of the Scriptures to the challenges one faces. In other words, we must know the Scriptures and apply them relevantly to the challenges before us.

As a result, people will be confronted with the truth of God. Paul describes this call when he says: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Today we give the term apologetics this ministry. But apologetics is not dry intellectual discourse. As Stephen’s ministry shows, true apologetics must be done in the power of the Spirit. We must all seek to possess such “knowledge on fire.”19

Biblical radicalism. As God used Stephen to lead the church along a radically new path, Stephen’s life and ministry will help us see the qualities required of those whom God calls to blaze new trails for him. His radicalism not only led him to fearlessly proclaim truths that were unpalatable to his audience, it also led him to thunder accusations against them. Consequently, his opponents severely opposed him and even gnashed their teeth at him (7:54). But in the midst of it all Stephen expressed the graciousness of God (6:8).

We can note a series of contrasts between Stephen’s attitude and that of his accusers. When false accusations were made against him, “his face was like the face of an angel” (6:15). When the people were gnashing their teeth at him in fury (7:54), he was filled with the Holy Spirit and had a clear vision of Christ (7:55). While they stoned him fiercely, he prayed to God asking that their sin be excused (7:60). While we may not be called to be “specialist radicals,” the gospel is by nature so radical that all serious Christians will sooner or later find themselves challenging people in the way they think and act. Stephen shows us that when we face opposition in such situations, we should remain winsome.

It is important to note that Stephen’s radicalism had the Scriptures as its source and authority. What he said sprang from the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. In that sense, though what he was saying was revolutionary, it was not new. He did not create new truth; he discovered truth already taught explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and the teachings of Christ. If we approach the Bible with an open mind, we will find that it will make us also into radicals, for God’s truth always has something radical to say to this fallen world. Given our limitations, we will always fall short of fully apprehending the truth of the Bible. Thus, we will constantly discover fresh truth if we are open to learning from Scripture. But the world, and even the church, will oppose what we discover and communicate. Yet even the prospect of death did not deter Stephen from communicating his radical scriptural message.

Radicals often express their message in anger to an obstinate people. This was true of Stephen, but he exemplified the unusual combination of an angelic face and angry accusation of the Jews for rejecting God’s ways. If our hearts burn too with the things that are close to the heart of God, we will become angry at people’s disdain for the ways of God. But at such times we must reflect both the holiness and the love of God.

Biblical contextualization. Stephen’s speech is an example of biblical contextualization. Contextualization takes place when we make our message relevant to the context in which we present it. Stephen spoke from the Jewish Scriptures. He obviously knew his audience well, and he spoke in a way that was relevant to them. But the gospel was so revolutionary in nature that unless they were willing to repent of their past ways and take the radical step of conversion, they had to oppose him. Each generation of Christians must seek ways to make the gospel relevant to their communities without compromising its content.

Stephen’s key themes. We might be tempted to neglect the three themes of Stephen’s speech since we no longer need to be freed from the confines of Judaism. But they contain important and helpful aspects of Christian theology. The issue of God’s activity not being confined to the geographical land of Israel has, to my knowledge, not been a problem in the church since Stephen’s time. However, the idea of Christendom that has influenced much of the thinking on the relationship between state and church in Europe a few centuries ago can be seen, at least in spirit, as contradicting Stephen’s emphasis (see below).

The other two issues have had more direct application to the church through the centuries. While no Christians claim that true worship can only be done at the Jewish temple, we have at different times come up with our own “Jerusalem temples.” There has been an almost magical veneration of some places as holy ground. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews also pursued this theme. He emphasized that while in the era of the old covenant the high priest was needed and regular sacrifices had to be made in the temple, now the eternal sacrifice of Jesus has made those unnecessary (Heb. 9–10). Christ opened the door to a new and living way, where we can approach the throne of God with confidence (10:19–20; see 4:16). We therefore do not need a temple anymore. Paul later wrote that we are the temple of God, in whom God himself dwells (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:19).

Stephen’s third point (that the Jews have always rejected God’s representatives) contains a warning for all of us who claim to be God’s chosen people. We too can end up opposing God’s chosen vessels; indeed, the history of the church shows that Christians have been as bad at this as the Jews of old were.

Contemporary Significance

THE CHALLENGE OF balanced Christianity. In our age, when specialization has gone to an extreme in almost every sphere of life, Stephen’s balance has much to say to us. He sought to be obedient in all areas of life and thus exhibited combinations that we sometimes think do not go together. We are so influenced by pragmatism that we may look at specific things a person can achieve without thinking about other areas of his or her life. Take the example of a wonderful singer who is a poor wife and mother because of an uncontrollable temper. We might use her in an evangelistic rally, claiming that her private life does not necessarily impact her public singing. Or we might excuse a brilliant apologist for not being faithful in attending worship every Sunday, saying that he has a lot of study to do. Or we may leave biblical reflection to the teachers among us and look to the creative people to come up with new ideas for our programs.

Stephen’s life shows us that it is possible, and indeed essential, for Christians to be balanced. Singers must be patient at home. Apologists must be faithful about participating in worship. Creative people must be men and women of God’s Word. Biblical balance refers to total obedience. Such totality will force us to avoid unhealthy excesses. For example, we cannot neglect our families, because obedience to Christ includes caring for our families.

Acquiring inspired wisdom. If we are to have inspired wisdom so that opponents of the gospel will not be able to “stand up against [our] wisdom or the Spirit by whom” (6:10) we speak, we must work both at our message and our lives. We must outthink and outlive those who oppose the gospel. I can think of at least five requirements in this regard. (1) We must know the Scriptures. (2) We must know the people to whom we minister and the way they think. (3) We must be able to let the Scriptures speak penetratingly to the issues our audience faces. This comes through careful reflection, as we look for ways to make the connection between the world of the Bible and the world of our audience. (4) We must ensure that there is no hindrance to the infilling of the Spirit in our lives. We must be vessels fit for the Master’s use, purified of ignoble things and prepared to do any good work (2 Tim. 2:20–21). (5) We must, through prayer, make sure that we are in tune with the mind of the Spirit.

How to become winsome radicals. The call to be winsome radicals, like Stephen, is an important challenge facing Christians today. If we are faithful to God, we are sure to face anger and opposition from within and outside the church. We will be treated unjustly, and many will attribute unworthy motives to what we do. Our “true worth” will not be recognized, and perhaps we too will end out lives as Stephen did—as apparent failures. How can we remain winsome under such circumstances?

To be sure, many radicals are anything but winsome. They are cynical and angry people, whose worthwhile messages may go unheeded because of their disagreeable disposition. Cynicism may have reached epidemic proportions in the church as a reaction to the predominance of appearance (looking good) that leaves room for hypocrisy (appearance without substance) to thrive.

Stephen’s life shows us how to maintain winsomeness is a hostile world. He was “a man full of God’s grace” (6:8). Whatever people may do to us, however severe their sins against us may be, we must be able to affirm the supremacy of grace—that God’s grace “superabounds” (lit. trans. of hyperperisseuo in Rom. 5:20 and hyperpleonazo in 1 Tim. 1:14) over all sins and situations. We must affirm the principle that God will work good through what we have experienced because we “love him” and “have been called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). We must be able to say, as Joseph said to his brothers who had treated him so badly, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20). We will need to battle in the presence of God, as the psalmists did (Ps. 73), until we know that he has comforted us and that the vision of superabounding grace has overcome our bitterness. Then, having tasted of the comforting grace of God, we will be able to minister this grace to others (2 Cor. 1:3–7).

Stephen clearly achieved his winsomeness through his contact with God. Evidence of this intimate relationship abounds in Acts 6–7. His communion with God seemed to deepen as the viciousness of the opposition deepened. When he was brought to trial, so close was his tie with God that his face looked like that of an angel (6:15). When he is then described as being filled with the Spirit, he had a vision of Christ and began to say the same things that Jesus said at his death (vv. 56, 59–60). The evangelist D. L. Moody once told his friend, Bible expositor G. Campbell Morgan, “Character is what a man is in the dark.”20

The key to maintaining winsomeness under pressure is maintaining our tie with God, as Stephen did. We must develop the discipline of seeking God and his beautiful face first (Ps. 27:4) whenever we are attacked, so that we can always operate out of an experience of grace. Then grace will make us gracious, and we will become winsome radicals. Millions of Christians, by not waging a war against bitterness, have missed out on the opportunities to radiate God’s grace through winsomeness and charm.

With this winsomeness Stephen had the face of an angel and expressed God’s wrath against sin. Sometimes we hear people say, “He’s such a saint, he never gets angry.” This is because we have come to value an understanding of tolerance that is far from the biblical lifestyle. True, in the past we may have seen uptight religious people who were unpleasant to be around because they were always ranting and raving against evil. Nothing pleasant came from their lips. We must surely avoid this extreme, but we must also avoid the opposite extreme.

I have come to realize that my failure at times to get angry over wrong is a reflection of my fallenness rather than by godliness. I may have often sinned against my children and colleagues by not expressing wrath concerning things in their lives that dishonored God. When we do not show anger against our children when they do wrong, we may be opening the door for serious insecurity in their lives. Unconsciously we may be sending them the message that their wrong actions are not serious enough to merit an angry response. That in turn communicates the idea that they are not significant enough to be taken seriously. Many such children grow up to be delinquents, and through their wrong deeds try to grab the attention they were deprived of in their childhood.21

How the Scriptures can make us radicals. In our discussion of biblical radicalism, we pointed out that Stephen’s radicalism had Scripture as its source and authority. In the same way we too, because of the radical nature of God’s truth, will become radicals if we take the Scriptures seriously today.

This can happen in four ways. (1) We can rediscover truths that have been hidden from us because of theological, cultural, historical, or other blinds. Stephen had to remind his audience of what the Bible said about the temple. These were truths that had been obscured through years of tradition. The evangelical church has recently rediscovered similar truths—for example, the biblical use of the whole body in worship, resulting in dance and the use of the hands. Another has been the importance of worship as an end in itself rather than as a means of evangelism or teaching. Helpful in this process is learning from people of other traditions who may not be hampered by the blinds we have. For example, evangelical authors like A. W. Tozer, who helped the evangelical church rediscover biblical spirituality and worship,22 have found much inspiration from Roman Catholic spiritual writers.23

(2) We can see implications in what the Bible says, which will open the door to radical ideas. Stephen concluded that the temple was not necessary by drawing implications from what the Old Testament said about God. In a similar vein, the Bible does not give an explicit prohibition of slavery. But about two hundred years ago, Christians in Britain realized that what the Bible said about the worth of individuals clearly contradicted the form of slavery that was practiced in the British Empire. Thus, they fought it on scriptural grounds. In this century Christians in our part of the world have been realizing this about casteism and class prejudice.

(3) The Bible can become a radical book when we try to apply it in a thoroughgoing manner. Stephen had the audacity to point the finger and say “you,” and to thunder accusations against his opponents as he applied the truths he expounded. Similarly, in a world torn by war, when we apply what the Bible says about loving our enemies, we may end up taking radical courses of action. Thoroughgoing application is one of the most “dangerous” aspects of preaching. Christians, especially those in the evangelical tradition, like to hear doctrinally sound messages. Many appreciate our preaching on unpleasant topics like hell and judgment. But what if we apply some of the teachings to areas that are not considered “kosher” by evangelicals? They may accuse us of meddling rather than preaching.

(4) We can be radical in the form in which we express Christianity. Christians get used to ways of worshiping God and communicating the gospel. But some of the ways we are “comfortable with” may be hopelessly irrelevant if we want to reach the lost around us. True Christian love drives us to do things with which we are uncomfortable so that we can reach our contemporaries (see 1 Cor. 9:19–23). Others who see these new ways of communication may become upset and oppose them. When George Frideric Handel performed his oratorio Messiah for the first time in Dublin, Ireland, it was warmly received. But when he brought it to England, the reception was lukewarm. Lord Shaftesbury says in his Memoirs, “Partly from the scruples some persons had entertained, and partly from not entering into the genius of the Composition, this Capital Composition was but indifferently relish’d.”24 The words were from Scripture, but the style of music and the place it was performed (the concert hall) did not sit well with many.

If Scripture drives us to radicalism, we must not be surprised if our best efforts at obedience to God go unappreciated. Ours is a market-oriented culture, and the church has been heavily influenced by this. Markets thrive on popularity, but radical things are rarely popular, at least at the start. For this reason we may shy away from biblical radicalism. We may avoid writing a book that we know will not sell well, even though that book contains a message the Lord wants his church to have. We may avoid preaching a sermon that people will not like. We may avoid talking about a scriptural truth that will be opposed by influential people.

The perspective of God’s sovereignty should help us be faithful. If we do “not become weary in doing good . . . at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up” (Gal. 6:9). The reaping in Stephen’s case took place after his death. But he was faithful. Thus, undaunted by the world’s fascination for quick results, the Christian remains faithful to the eternal will of God. “The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:17).

Becoming biblical contextualizers.25 Stephen contextualized his message by adapting it to his audience without toning down its radical nature. In contextualizing the gospel today, we must present it so that our audience understands it and does so in a way that is relevant to them and grabs their attention. We may use language and practices that our audience already uses, if are consonant with scriptural measures of judgment. But we must not tone down our message and leave out things that are unpleasant. Neither may we add things that are alien to or contradict the Scriptures, for then contextualization becomes syncretism. When that happens, people end up accepting what we say and remain perfectly happy as Buddhists, Hindus, or secularists. Or people may become Christians but retain some of their practices that are contrary to Christianity. That is, they may continue to be pornographers, adulterers, or racists, or to consult the astrology page in the newspapers each morning.

Missiologist Paul Hiebert has popularized the term critical contextualization to refer to a biblical way of doing this.26 We must study people and their culture as well as biblical teachings that relate to their ideas and practices. We must then come up with a message and a lifestyle that is relevant, understandable, and inviting to their situation. This message will challenge their culture through God’s principles. When that happens, some who do not want to change will be provoked and oppose the Word. But others will accept what we say and be transformed by Christ.

Sacred space? It is true to say that at different times in the history of the church, Christians have neglected the teaching of Stephen that there is no special place (such as the Jerusalem temple) to worship God. Believers have fought battles, for example, over the place of the altar in worship. On one extreme are the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and “high church” Anglican (Episcopalian) traditions, who have the holy altar depicting the presence of God in the sanctuary. On the other extreme are the Brethren Assemblies, who call their places of worship gospel halls. These halls have the pulpit in the middle, depicting the primacy of God’s Word.

The Reformers were surely correct in battling what may be called the sacralizing of space. There is no place in the New Testament for holy places where people go on pilgrimage, expecting merit to accrue to them by being there. The popularity of these places even today may be traced to a lack of an intimate knowledge of God resulting from not having the confidence to freely enter his throne, which the new covenant opened for us (Heb. 4:16; 10:19–20).

There has been a trend recently, even in some Roman Catholic circles, to use church buildings for “secular” purposes when they are not being used for worship. Considering the cost of buildings and the valuable space they take, this may be a helpful contemporary extension of the principles for which Stephen battled.27

The eighteenth-century revival carried a trend begun with the Reformation even further by helping break down the traditional sense of a parish—a geographical area under the control of a priest. John Wesley spoke of the whole world as being his parish.28 Until then, the parish had been a key unit of Christendom, where the countries had their state churches—Anglican in England, Presbyterian in Scotland, Reformed in the Netherlands, and Lutheran in Scandinavia and some German territories.29 The extreme expression of this idea was the Christianizing ambitions of countries like Spain and Portugal, whose missionaries went along with the colonial armies as they conquered the nations that became their colonies.30 All this seems to contradict the spirit of Stephen’s appeals to desacralize space and to free the gospel from nationalist exclusivisms.

While the Protestant, especially the evangelical, movement can be credited with combating the unbiblical sacralizing of space, it may have gone too far in emphasizing intimacy with God to the exclusion of honoring the holiness of God. We must remember that the same letter that speaks of confidence in entering the throne of God also asks us to “worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘God is a consuming fire’ ” (Heb. 12:28–29). We cannot throw away completely this Old Testament emphasis, which, as we saw, is in the book of Hebrews as well. The psalmist says, “Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth” (Ps. 96:9).

In order to do this well in this busy world with all its distractions, we may find that a building conducive to concentrating on God is a great aid to worshiping him with reverence and awe.31 It is heartening to see that many within the evangelical movement have seen this need for a renewed emphasis on worship and are writing and advocating a fresh return to finding what A. W. Tozer called “the missing crown jewel in evangelical Christianity.”32

God’s people opposing his representatives. Stephen’s indictment of the Jews as opposing those whom God sent with his message should cause us sober reflection. This is especially so since the history of the church has so many instances of Christians being out of step with what God is doing, either opposing the very people who were pleasing God or siding with those who were championing unbiblical standards. Let me cite three examples:

• When William Carey attempted to place before a meeting of Baptist ministers the challenge of missions, he is said to have been rebuked by a senior minister with the words, “Sit down young man! When God chooses to convert the heathen he will do it without your aid or mine!”33

• When the sixty-five-year-old British Methodist leader Thomas Coke announced that he was planning to take a missionary team to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), a famous churchman, Dr. Edward Pusey, wrote accusing him of trying to build an empire. Coke “was known,” said Pusey, “to be ambitious, affecting high titles of honor, to which he had no claim.”34

• When Hitler began his radical nationalistic program, many Christians joined him. Moreover, many not only in Germany but also throughout the world kept quiet when they heard about the atrocities being committed against the Jews.35

I think a major reason for this scandalous record within the church is that Christians often want to be comfortable; thus, they resist change. Christianity, however, can never coexist with comfort. Human thoughts are too far from God’s, and the world is in so much trouble that the nearer we get to God’s way of thinking, the more uncomfortable we will become. Evangelicals often called themselves conservatives because they are faithful to the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Yet the conservative mentality is often associated with an unwillingness to change and accept the mistakes one has made. Biblical Christians must always be open to change because they know how far they are from the ideals of God. We must be open to self-criticism36 and remember that this self-criticism will often come through people who have discovered something from the Word that the rest of us had neglected. May we welcome such prophets, rather than persecute them. And may we humbly open ourselves to correction.

Original Meaning

The Man Stephen (6:5 , 8–10)

STEPHEN MUST HAVE been an outstanding person because Luke mentions six features of his character and ministry in 6:5–10. (1) He was “a man full of faith” (6:5). As David Williams points out, “His faith was not different in kind from the faith that all Christians have, but exceptional in the extent to which he was willing to trust Christ, to take him at his word and to risk all for Christ’s sake.”4 This was a key requirement for one who blazed new trails for the gospel. Many opposed him. Probably even people within the church would have preferred for him to take a more cautious approach. But Stephen saw certain implications in what the Bible taught and what Christ did, and he was willing to risk all for the truth of those implications.

(2) He was “full . . . of the Holy Spirit” (6:5). This statement is found in the context of a listing of the Seven. This need not have been mentioned, since all of the Seven had to be filled with the Spirit (6:3). Possibly there were some like, Stephen and Barnabas (11:24), who so exhibited the power of the Spirit that when people observed them, they were struck by this fact, and it is thus given special mention. Verse 8 confirms this by saying Stephen was “a man full of God’s . . . power.” This feature manifested itself as he “did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.”

(3) He was “a man full of God’s grace” (6:8). Since this phrase comes just before the external manifestation of God’s power, we can assume that it refers to the way God was manifested internally. Thus, Bruce and Longenecker think that what is intended by the use of “grace” here is “spiritual charm” or “winsomeness.”5 This is a possible meaning of the word used here (charis).6 Stephen had let God’s grace impact him so much that it had made him a gracious person. Of course, graciousness does not mean weakness, and later we see him thundering accusations against the Jews (7:51–53). But it does mean that Stephen was able to act in a Christlike way under provocation.

(4) The opponents who debated Stephen were “members of the Synagogue7 of the Freedmen” (v. 9). They came from four places: Cyrene and Alexandria, cities in upper Africa, and Cilicia and Asia, provinces in Asia Minor. The most important town in Cilicia was Tarsus, Paul’s hometown. Did Paul (Saul) worship in this synagogue? We cannot be sure, but we know that he was involved in Stephen’s death. He may have, however, preferred a synagogue using Hebrew, for he calls himself a Hebrew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5). The most important town in Asia was Ephesus (cf. also the seven churches in Asia, Rev. 2–3). Freedmen (libertinos8) were probably the descendants of those who had been liberated from slavery or imprisonment. This synagogue “might well have owed its origin to Jews who had been taken as prisoners of war to Rome in the time of Pompey (63 B.C.)” and were later liberated.9 This was clearly a Hellenist synagogue and may be the one to which Stephen himself once belonged.10

(5) and (6) The last two features of Stephen’s character relate to his preaching: “They could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke” (6:10). “Wisdom” (sophia) appears only four times in Acts (6:3, 10; 7:10, 22). It was an “inspired wisdom” (REB), in that the Spirit gave Stephen the words to speak, in keeping with the promise of Christ, “For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Luke 21:15).

According to Jewish and Old Testament ideas, wisdom refers to one’s “approach to life, arising out of life in the covenant bestowed by God.” It was “regarded as the gift of God.”11 Luke follows this idea in his use of the word “wisdom.”12 We see it in Stephen’s speech, which is saturated in Scripture and applies Scripture to the challenges arising from the gospel. Speaking out of the Jewish worldview, using Jewish Scripture, and inspired by the Spirit, Stephen speaks in a way that cuts to the heart of their thinking, and they cannot answer him. In the previous study we talked of the ability to apply Scripture to the challenges one faces as a key to an effective ministry of the Word. Stephen brilliantly exemplifies this ability.