Acts 6:8 - Meaning and Application

Stephen was, no doubt, diligent and faithful in carrying out his work of distributing the church’s charity. He worked hard to put that task in good order, and he did it to everyone’s satisfaction. Even though he was clearly a man of unusual gifts and fit for a higher place, he did not think it beneath him to do the work he had been given. He was faithful in a little, and so he was trusted with more.

Though we do not read of him preaching and baptizing, we do find him called to honorable service and approved in it. He showed the truth of the gospel by doing miracles in Christ’s name (Acts 6:8). He was full of faith and power, that is, strong faith that enabled him to do great things. Those who are full of faith are also full of power, because faith draws in God’s strength for us.

His faith filled him so fully that unbelief had no room to remain, and God’s grace had room to work. So, as the prophet says, he was full of power by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts (Micah 3:8). By faith we are emptied of self, and then filled with Christ, who is the wisdom of God and the power of God. Because of this, he did great wonders and miracles among the people, openly and before everyone. Christ’s miracles were never afraid of close examination.

It is no surprise that Stephen did these mighty works, even though he was not an official preacher. The gifts of the Spirit are different, and they are given in different ways, for one receives the working of miracles and another prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 12:11). These signs followed not only those who preached, but also those who believed (Mark 16:17).

He also defended Christianity against those who opposed it, and he argued for it in debate (Acts 6:9, Acts 6:10). While others served religion in quieter ways, he served it as a disputant in the open field. His opponents were Jews, but Hellenistic Jews, that is, Jews from the dispersion. They seem to have been even more eager for their religion than the native Jews, because they had to work harder to keep it alive where they lived. They were members of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines.

The Romans used the word Libertini, or freedmen, for people who were either foreigners made citizens or slaves set free. Some think these Libertines were Jews who had gained Roman freedom, as Paul later had (Acts 22:27, Acts 22:28). If so, Paul was likely the most active man in that synagogue when Stephen was debated, and he was later involved in Stephen’s death. There were also men from the synagogues of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and others from Cilicia and Asia.

These foreign Jews often had to travel to Jerusalem, and some lived there as well. Each nation had its own synagogue, much as London has French, Dutch, and Danish churches. These synagogues also served as schools, where Jewish youth were trained in Jewish learning. So the teachers there, seeing the gospel spread and fearing for Judaism, tried to put Christianity down by argument.

That was a fair and reasonable way to fight the matter, and religion should always welcome that kind of test. “Present your case,” the Lord says, “bring forward your strong reasons” (Isaiah 41:21). Why did they argue with Stephen and not with the apostles themselves? Some think they despised the apostles as uneducated men and felt it beneath them to face them. Stephen, they thought, had enough learning to make him a worthy opponent.

Others think they feared the apostles and felt more free with Stephen, since he held a lower office. Or perhaps the disciples had chosen Stephen as their champion after the opponents had issued a public challenge, because the apostles should not leave preaching the word to enter into controversy. Stephen, a deacon and a young man of keen mind and strong ability, was better suited to deal with sharp debaters than the apostles themselves.

Some historians say Stephen had been taught at the feet of Gamaliel, a respected Jewish teacher, and that Saul and the others attacked him as a deserter. They seem to have singled him out with special anger. It is also likely that they disputed with Stephen because he was eager to reason with them and try to persuade them, and this was the work God had given him.

He won the dispute. They could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke (Acts 6:10). They could neither hold up their own arguments nor answer his. He proved with powerful reasons that Jesus is the Christ, and he spoke so clearly and fully that they had nothing to say against him. They were not convinced, but they were silenced.

The Scripture does not say they were unable to resist Stephen himself, but that they could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. It was the Spirit of wisdom speaking through him. Then the promise was fulfilled: “I will give you words and wisdom that none of your enemies will be able to oppose or answer” (Luke 21:15). They thought they were only dealing with Stephen, but they were really fighting against the Spirit of God in him, and that was too great an opponent for them.

In the end, he sealed the truth with his blood, as we will see in the next chapter. Here we are shown the first steps his enemies took toward that end. When they could not answer his arguments as a debater, they went after him as if he were a criminal, and they hired false witnesses to accuse him of blasphemy. “On such terms,” says Mr. Baxter, “do we dispute with wicked men.”

It is almost a miracle of providence that more religious people have not been murdered in the world by lies, false oaths, and fake legal action. So many people hate them, and some make no conscience of swearing falsely. The rulers here hired men to repeat what they wanted said, and then paid them to swear to it.

They were especially furious with Stephen because he had shown them they were wrong and had pointed out the right way. Instead of thanking him, they treated him as an enemy for telling the truth. They were determined to use every possible means against him. If one path failed, they would try another. They stirred up the crowd, so that if the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, still chose to leave him alone, mob anger might destroy him. They also stirred up the elders and scribes, the Jewish teachers and leaders, so that if the people protected him, authority could still crush him.

They brought Stephen before the council when he was not expecting it and seized him suddenly. The word suggests they rushed at him like a lion on its prey. By treating him so roughly, they wanted everyone to see him as a dangerous man, someone who would run from justice if unchecked or resist it if forced. They brought him in triumphantly, and likely so quickly that none of his friends were there with him. They had learned that when many believers came together, they strengthened one another, so now they tried to deal with him alone.

They also came prepared with evidence. They did not want to fail, as they had when they brought Jesus before Pilate and had to look for witnesses. These men were arranged ahead of time and taught to swear that Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God (Acts 6:11), and against the holy place and the law (Acts 6:13). They claimed he had said Jesus would change their place and customs (Acts 6:14). He may have said something like that. Still, they are called false witnesses, because they twisted his words and gave them a malicious meaning.

The main charge was that he kept speaking blasphemous words. They made it sound as if this was his constant habit, something he said everywhere and to everyone. They also wanted to suggest stubbornness, as if he had been warned and refused to stop. Blasphemy, speaking with contempt about God, is indeed a serious sin. So Stephen’s persecutors wanted to appear deeply concerned for God’s honor, as if they were serving him by accusing Stephen.

They said Stephen spoke against Moses and against God. In one sense, they were right that to speak against Moses, if they mean the writings of Moses, is to speak against God, since those writings came by divine inspiration. Anyone who mocks Scripture dishonors God himself. God means to honor his law and make it respected, so those who shame it also shame his name. But Stephen did not blaspheme Moses. Christ and the preachers of the gospel never spoke against Moses. They honored his writings, appealed to them, and taught only what Moses had pointed toward.

When the charge had to be proved, it became much weaker. All they could really say was that Stephen had spoken against this holy place and the law. They treated that as if it were the same as blaspheming Moses and God. So the accusation shrank when it came to evidence.

They charged him with speaking against this holy place, which likely means the temple, the holy house. Some take it to mean Jerusalem, the holy city, but the temple fits better here. Christ was also condemned as a blasphemer for words thought to reflect badly on the temple. The same people claimed to care for its honor, even though their own sins had already defiled it.

They also accused him of speaking against the law, the law they boasted in and trusted in, even while breaking it and dishonoring God (Romans 2:23). But again, when they tried to prove it, the charge grew smaller. They could only say that they had heard him say Jesus of Nazareth would destroy this place and change the customs Moses gave them. They did not explain the setting or the meaning of those words.

Stephen could not fairly be accused of speaking badly about the temple or the law. The priests had already profaned the temple by turning it into a place of business and a den of thieves, yet they wanted to look zealous for it against a man who had always treated it with more true respect. He had not insulted the law as they had. He had said that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple and Jerusalem. He likely did say that, and it was not blasphemy to warn that the holy place would not last forever, just as Shiloh had not lasted forever, and that the holy and just God would not keep giving sanctuary privileges to people who abused them. The prophets had warned their fathers of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans. Even when the temple was first built, God had given the same warning: “This house, which is so high, will become an astonishment” (2 Chronicles 7:21).

Was he a blasphemer because he warned them that Jesus of Nazareth would bring fair judgment on their nation and city if they kept resisting him? If so, they should blame themselves. People often act very wrongly when they use their religion as a shield and call honest correction “blasphemy” just because it exposes their bad conduct.

He had also said, “Jesus will change the customs Moses gave us.” But in the days of the Messiah, people expected these customs to change. The shadows were meant to give way when the real thing came. This was not an attack on God’s law, but its completion. Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If he changed some customs Moses had given, it was to bring in better ones.

If the Jewish church had not stubbornly refused this new order and kept clinging to the ceremonial law, it may be that their place would not have been destroyed. So Stephen was accused as a blasphemer for doing what would have helped them avoid ruin, and for warning them plainly that ruin would come if they would not turn.

We are also told how God honored Stephen when he stood before the council and showed that he was with him (Acts 6:15). The priests, scribes, and elders stared at him, since he was a stranger to them and had not stood before them before. They saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Judges often watch a prisoner’s face, because it can sometimes suggest guilt or innocence. Stephen came before them with the look of an angel. It may mean only that his face was unusually bright and cheerful, with no fear or bitterness in it. He looked as if he had never been happier than when he was publicly bearing witness to Christ and standing ready for martyrdom, dying for his faith.

Or it may mean something more. Perhaps there was a miraculous brightness on his face, like Jesus’ face at the transfiguration, or like Moses’ face when he came down from the mountain. God likely meant this to honor his faithful servant and shame his persecutors and judges. Their sin would be worse because they were fighting against clear light, since they went on with the case even after seeing that God had marked Stephen out as his own.

We are not told whether Stephen knew his face was shining. But everyone in the council saw it, and they likely spoke about it among themselves. It was a shameful thing that, when they could not help seeing God’s approval on him, they did not call him from the dock to the judge’s seat. Wisdom and holiness make a person’s face shine, yet they do not keep that person from great insults. No wonder, then, that Stephen’s shining face did not protect him, even though it would have been easy to show that if he had truly dishonored Moses, God would not have put Moses’ honor on him in that way.