The Importance of Stephen
Biblical text: Acts, Chapters 6 and 7
Primary extra-biblical source: The Book of Acts, F. F. Bruce, Rev. Ed., 1988.
Previous lessons in this series:
Lesson 1: The Choosing of the Seven
1 And the high priest said, “Are these things so?” 2 And Stephen said: “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. 5 Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot's length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. 6 And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years. 7 ‘But I will judge the nation that they serve,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.’ 8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs. (Acts 7:1-8)Many bible translations refer to this passage of scripture with the heading Stephen's Defense. But it wasn't really a defense in the traditional, courtroom sense of the word. Stephen was not seeking an acquittal. He was playing offense, not defense.
We note that the high priest mention in v1 is most likely the self-same Caiaphas who presided over Jesus' trial. It is believed that he was in office from 18-36 AD. In any event, the law required that the accused be told of the charges.
At first blush, starting in v2 it looks like Stephen cobbled together a simple history lesson that would have been quite familiar to the Sanhedrin. In fact, it was a well-crafted and purposeful summary. In the context of Stephen being charged with plotting against the temple, the history lesson becomes a tu quoque; the charges against him are ironic considering the history of the Jews including an extensive history wherein the Jews, beginning with Abraham, worshipped God with no temple or holy city. Stephen will also remind the court (later in his response) that the Jews had repeatedly opposed God's spokesmen, including Moses in the desert, all the way up to their rejection of the ultimate spokesman of whose recent crucifixion they were complicit, and who was the one pointed to by all the prophets including Moses.
Consider the summary of Abraham's life. In light of the charge he faces of threatening the temple, Stephen is reminding the court that long before there was a building or even a city, God revealed himself to Abraham, in far away Mesopotamia. Abraham would never dwell in the promised land--for him it would remain just that--a promise. Stephen's intent in reciting this ancient history would have been clear: God does not need a temple or a Jerusalem in order to dwell among his people. This is not a lesson the Sanhedrin, nor most of the people, could accept. At this point it may have even been a stretch to the Apostles who, as mentioned earlier, were still going to temple.
Again, it is Stephen who appears to have gotten parts of Jesus' teaching that was overlooked by others. Recall Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well:
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. (John 4:21)This is a rather clear teaching that it is a mistake to confine God's fellowship with his people to a material building. It may have been acceptable, for a time, as a foreshadowing--a type if you will, as much of God's revelation in the Old Testament was--but that time is rapidly coming to a close.
Speaking of Samaritans, some scholars have argued for a detectable Samaritan influence in Stephen's speech. But as F. F. Bruce points out, the Samaritans were in agreement with normative Judaism on the concept of God dwelling in a house--they just differed on location. For the Samaritans it was Mount Gerizim, where they believed lay buried the sacred vessels of the Mosaic Tabernacle, rather than Mount Zion. But Stephen was not arguing about the location of the temple, but against the very principle of a temple. Nor does it appear that Stephen being a Hellenist explains his keen insight, although it certainly and providentially contributed to his selection as a leader and his martyrdom, as discussed in previous lessons in this series. The early Hellenists followers of Jesus, apart from Stephen 1, are not recorded as being as radical in regards to the temple, although it cannot be stated with any certainty that there were not others who shared Stephen's views.
In v8 we see a reminder of the sign of the covenant, circumcision, given to Abraham and then to Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs. Here the point Stephen is likely making (and the court receiving) is that at that ancient time, the Jews had all the essential elements of their faith in place long before there was a temple and the ceremonial law.
So Stephen gave a familiar history lesson, one that could not be disputed, but he used it in an unforeseen way--to argue that there was a time before the temple when the people knew God and worshipped Him. And, although for more fully revealed reasons, another time which didn't require the temple was at hand. Stephen was using the era of the patriarchs, when the temple was unnecessary, to point to a time (now) when the temple was rendered meaningless.
1 Where did all the Hellenist Christians, who were primarily Jews of the Diaspora, come from? It appears to have been Peter's sermon at Pentecost, which included in the audience, as recorded in Acts 2, a significant contingent of that population.
No comments:
Post a Comment