Wednesdays are for the New Testament
2/28/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 6:1-8:1a." In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pp. 119-161). William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
This passage is rather longer than I would like. However, it makes logical sense to take the narrative of Stephen from beginning to end.
Acts 6:1-6 introduces us to a significant milestone in the life of the Christian community, as we meet Hellenists for the first time (Bruce 1988, p. 119). Bruce considers the fact that both the Hellenists and the Hebrews were Jews who converted to Christianity. However, the Hellenists would have attended synagogues where the services were in Greek, and where there was more Greek culture in the community. There were tensions between the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews, which may have remained among those who converted (Bruce 1988, p. 120).
The controversial issue in Acts 6 was that of charity to the poor among the congregation, and particularly widows. Distributions were made by Palestinians and the Hellenistic widows perceived they were at a disadvantage (Bruce 1988, p. 120). Though the apostles were not primarily involved in the distributions, as leaders they took action, asking the community to select seven men to administer the distribution. The requirements in verses 2-4 "might be regarded as ideal requirements for all church appointments" (Bruce 1988, p. 121). This would allow the apostles to concentrate on worship and preaching.
Bruce observes that in verse five the seven men appear to be Hellenists, not only based on their names, but also on the situation and on other facts we learn about some of them elsewhere. The community as a whole selected the men, then the selection was ratified by the apostles, who laid hands on them and installed them (v. 6). Bruce briefly describes a laying on of hands as a means of blessing, identification, or commissioning someone (Bruce 1988, p. 122).
Bruce observes that the term "deacon" is not used in this passage for the seven, but that the parallel term for "service" is used to describe the task (Bruce 1988, p. 122). Stephen and Philip appear in other contexts doing the work of evangelism.
In Acts 6:7, Luke briefly reports the continued growth of Christian influence, especially among priests. Bruce notes the priests may well have continued in their priestly roles (Bruce 1988, p. 123).
Verses 8-10 describe Stephen doing miracles and engaging others in powerful discussions (Bruce 1988, p. 124). Considering whether it was the laying on of hands which empowered Stephen to do these works, Bruce thinks the data is inconclusive, since we already knew Stephen was "full of the Spirit." Verses 9-10 point out Stephen's involvement in a Hellenistic synagogue, where leaders took offense at his message. Bruce briefly entertains the possibility that Saul of Tarsus, in Cilicia, may have been among these people, though it cannot be proved (Bruce 1988, p. 125). In public debate, Stephen's defense of Jesus' messiahship was not overthrown.
As a result of Stephen's robust defense, in Acts 6:11-15 Stephen was arrested and brought to the Sanhedrin (Bruce 1988, p. 125). Bruce observes that in verse 11, those speaking against God would naturally be described as "false witnesses." The charge of blasphemy was related to allegations that Stephen has spoken against the temple (Bruce 1988, p. 126). Since the work of the temple was also the prime economic force in Jerusalem, presenting a threat to the temple also threatened economic ruin (Bruce 1988, p. 126). It was fairly clear that Jesus had spoken of the end of the "temple order" (Bruce 1988, p. 126) and Stephen had endorsed Jesus' views. Bruce notes that the Synoptic Gospels never have Jesus making a statement about tearing down the temple then raising it up, but the gospels are clear that there were reports of Jesus saying that (Bruce 1988, p. 127). Stephen was clear that the sacrifice and ceremonial law were coming to an end. As Stephen faced the judges, he seemed angelic to them, as someone of great authority (Bruce 1988, p. 128).
The high priest, whom Bruce takes likely to be Caiaphas, in Acts 7:1, asked Stephen whether the charges were so. Bruce notes the importance in Jewish law of making certain an accused person knows the specific charge and has an opportunity to respond (Bruce 1988, p. 129).
Stephen's reply begins, in Acts 7:2-8, with a review of the history of God's call of Abraham and his promise made to him. Bruce observes this is not the start of a defense of Stephen but "a defense of pure Christianity as God's appointed way of worship" (Bruce 1988, p. 129). The defense is largely based on God's ability to work in the absence of a building (Bruce 1988, p. 130). In contrast to God's faithfulness to his people in the wilderness is Israel's failure to recognize him and his Messiah. Bruce observes that Stephen describes instances in which the people rejected God's means of rescue and provision. Bruce notes that Stephen has been portrayed as sympathetic to the Samaritans. However, he rejects the temple, whether in Judea or in Gerizim (Bruce 1988, p. 131). Some have related Stephen to the Ebionites, but their rejection of the temple did not emerge until after the year 70. They also would have rejected the view of Stephen that the gospel was also for Gentiles. Bruce considers Stephen's rejection of the temple to be forward looking in a way not characteristic even of other Hellenists of his time (Bruce 1988, p. 132.
Stephen's response in the form of an historical overview was a typical rabbinic practice. It rooted his statements in the works of God among His people (Bruce 1988, p. 132). He ties the rest of the message to Abraham and Moses, counter to the charge that he was speaking against Moses (Bruce 1988, p. 133). The description of Abraham, however, serves to detach the walk of faith from a temple in one location. Additionally, Abraham is used as an example of someone who believed but never actually received the land of promise (Bruce 1988, p. 135).
Acts 7:9-19 continues Stephen's narrative, describing Israel resident in Egypt. Stephen uses the sale of Joseph into slavery as an example of the patriarchs' failure to recognize God's hand of provision (Bruce 1988, p. 136).
In Acts 7:20-29, Stephen reviews the early history of Moses. Again, Bruce notes, Moses was the deliverer appointed by God, but the Israelites were not necessarily receptive to Moses (Bruce 1988, p. 139). Moses' flight from Egypt to the wilderness again shows that God's deliverer may be a person lacking a secure home (Bruce 1988, p. 140).
Acts 7:30-34 again emphasizes God's presence outside of the land of promise, making the place of his self-revelation the holy place (Bruce 1988, p. 140). Bruce notes the emphasis on God's ability to remember his covenants no matter where his people may be (Bruce 1988, p. 141).
Acts 7:35-43 continues the description of God's provision for his people in the wilderness. Bruce observes that as Joseph's brothers first rejected him then later accepted him, and as Moses was first rejected then accepted, Jesus had first been rejected and now must be accepted (Bruce 1988, p. 142). The presence of God was with Israel in the wilderness, but they were disobedient (Bruce 1988, p. 143). Bruce notes that Stephen here affirms Moses but does not affirm Israel. In verses 42-43 Stephen describes the result of Israel's distrust, making idols and worshiping the "hosts of heaven" (Bruce 1988, p. 143). This resulted in their abandonment by God.
Stephen quotes Amos at length. Bruce notes the significant differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts, concluding that both serve as a stern warning (Bruce 1988, p. 143). He notes that Amos may have considered sacrifice to have stopped at the time of the Assyrian exile, while Stephen seems certain that sacrifices continued, but to pagan deities (Bruce 1988, p. 144). Regardless, the people were not faithful to God. They refused to believe His deliverance.
Acts 7:44-50 describes the presence of the tabernacle with the people of Israel up to the time of David (Bruce 1988, p. 146). Bruce notes the significance of the tabernacle. It was the place of God's presence with Israel during all their wanderings, from Moses through the time of David (Bruce 1988, p. 147). God was present with Israel in accord with his revealed promise. In this passage, therefore, Stephen is noting that he is not hostile to a place of God's presence. God was there, but the people rejected his presence. Bruce observes that Stephen makes the same step we see in many early Christians, of not viewing the temple as the fulfillment of God's promise to be with Israel. Rather, Stephen sees this promise fulfilled in Jesus (Bruce 1988, p. 148). Stephen's contention (Acts 7:48) is that while pagan gods can be housed in buildings, the true God cannot (Bruce 1988, p. 149). Jesus and His Church are the true living temple of the living God. Stephen quotes the start of Isaiah 66 to speak of the nature of God's followers (Bruce 1988, p. 150). They are the temple.
Stephen then moves along, in Acts 7:51-53, to press the conclusion of his argument (Bruce 1988, p. 151). Bruce observes that Stephen moves into this conclusion rather abruptly. He calls Israel "stiffnecked" and "disobedient." They act like uncircumcised people (Bruce 1988, p. 152). They are exactly the kind of people who would have persecuted the prophets. Bruce notes that the Jewish leaders had attempted to distance themselves from those behaviors (Matthew 23:30). However, Stephen alleges they still have the same hostility, as evidenced by their advocacy for the death of Jesus.
The Sanhedrin was incensed by Stephen's accusations. In Acts 7:54-56, Stephen apparently saw a vision of Jesus at God's right hand. The reference Stephen made to Jesus was unmistakable to this council which had previously heard Jesus' own testimony (Bruce 1988, p. 154). They judged Stephen as guilty of blasphemy, though Bruce notes Stephen was the one speaking the truth. Bruce discusses the fact that, while Psalm 110:1 depicts the Son of Man sitting, Stephen sees him standing (Bruce 1988, p. 156). Bruce takes the standing posture as significant of the way a witness would stand in court to make statements (Bruce 1988, p. 156). The heavenly court has Jesus as a witness, whose testimony agrees with Stephen. The earthly court is making the wrong decision. Jesus is seen here as superior to the temple, the real presence of God for his people (Bruce 1988, p. 157).
Acts 7:57-60 describes a quick move to execution. Bruce notes that commentators take different views of the execution, with some assigning it to a fanatical mob of bystanders (Bruce 1988, p. 157). Bruce does observe that the presence of witnesses suggests there was a legal execution under a slightly broader view of blasphemy than that of pronouncing God's name (Bruce 1988, p. 158). He notes the presence of Saul at this point, a character who will take on a large role in Acts. Bruce finds no way in which this execution would not be an illegal usurpation of Roman law (Bruce 1988, p. 159). Regardless, it was done, and done quickly. Stephen's last statements are reminiscent of Luke's version of Jesus' last words. However, Stephen's express a high Christology. Jesus is the one who will receive him (Bruce 1988, p. 160).
Acts 8:1a closes the narrative of Stephen by observing that Saul, the Cilician from Tarsus, approved of the execution (Bruce 1988, p. 161). Bruce notes that Saul was not willing to compromise as Gamaliel had been (Acts 5:34-39). His desire was to eliminate Christianity.
2/28/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 6:1-8:1a." In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pp. 119-161). William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
This passage is rather longer than I would like. However, it makes logical sense to take the narrative of Stephen from beginning to end.
Acts 6:1-6 introduces us to a significant milestone in the life of the Christian community, as we meet Hellenists for the first time (Bruce 1988, p. 119). Bruce considers the fact that both the Hellenists and the Hebrews were Jews who converted to Christianity. However, the Hellenists would have attended synagogues where the services were in Greek, and where there was more Greek culture in the community. There were tensions between the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews, which may have remained among those who converted (Bruce 1988, p. 120).
The controversial issue in Acts 6 was that of charity to the poor among the congregation, and particularly widows. Distributions were made by Palestinians and the Hellenistic widows perceived they were at a disadvantage (Bruce 1988, p. 120). Though the apostles were not primarily involved in the distributions, as leaders they took action, asking the community to select seven men to administer the distribution. The requirements in verses 2-4 "might be regarded as ideal requirements for all church appointments" (Bruce 1988, p. 121). This would allow the apostles to concentrate on worship and preaching.
Bruce observes that in verse five the seven men appear to be Hellenists, not only based on their names, but also on the situation and on other facts we learn about some of them elsewhere. The community as a whole selected the men, then the selection was ratified by the apostles, who laid hands on them and installed them (v. 6). Bruce briefly describes a laying on of hands as a means of blessing, identification, or commissioning someone (Bruce 1988, p. 122).
Bruce observes that the term "deacon" is not used in this passage for the seven, but that the parallel term for "service" is used to describe the task (Bruce 1988, p. 122). Stephen and Philip appear in other contexts doing the work of evangelism.
In Acts 6:7, Luke briefly reports the continued growth of Christian influence, especially among priests. Bruce notes the priests may well have continued in their priestly roles (Bruce 1988, p. 123).
Verses 8-10 describe Stephen doing miracles and engaging others in powerful discussions (Bruce 1988, p. 124). Considering whether it was the laying on of hands which empowered Stephen to do these works, Bruce thinks the data is inconclusive, since we already knew Stephen was "full of the Spirit." Verses 9-10 point out Stephen's involvement in a Hellenistic synagogue, where leaders took offense at his message. Bruce briefly entertains the possibility that Saul of Tarsus, in Cilicia, may have been among these people, though it cannot be proved (Bruce 1988, p. 125). In public debate, Stephen's defense of Jesus' messiahship was not overthrown.
As a result of Stephen's robust defense, in Acts 6:11-15 Stephen was arrested and brought to the Sanhedrin (Bruce 1988, p. 125). Bruce observes that in verse 11, those speaking against God would naturally be described as "false witnesses." The charge of blasphemy was related to allegations that Stephen has spoken against the temple (Bruce 1988, p. 126). Since the work of the temple was also the prime economic force in Jerusalem, presenting a threat to the temple also threatened economic ruin (Bruce 1988, p. 126). It was fairly clear that Jesus had spoken of the end of the "temple order" (Bruce 1988, p. 126) and Stephen had endorsed Jesus' views. Bruce notes that the Synoptic Gospels never have Jesus making a statement about tearing down the temple then raising it up, but the gospels are clear that there were reports of Jesus saying that (Bruce 1988, p. 127). Stephen was clear that the sacrifice and ceremonial law were coming to an end. As Stephen faced the judges, he seemed angelic to them, as someone of great authority (Bruce 1988, p. 128).
The high priest, whom Bruce takes likely to be Caiaphas, in Acts 7:1, asked Stephen whether the charges were so. Bruce notes the importance in Jewish law of making certain an accused person knows the specific charge and has an opportunity to respond (Bruce 1988, p. 129).
Stephen's reply begins, in Acts 7:2-8, with a review of the history of God's call of Abraham and his promise made to him. Bruce observes this is not the start of a defense of Stephen but "a defense of pure Christianity as God's appointed way of worship" (Bruce 1988, p. 129). The defense is largely based on God's ability to work in the absence of a building (Bruce 1988, p. 130). In contrast to God's faithfulness to his people in the wilderness is Israel's failure to recognize him and his Messiah. Bruce observes that Stephen describes instances in which the people rejected God's means of rescue and provision. Bruce notes that Stephen has been portrayed as sympathetic to the Samaritans. However, he rejects the temple, whether in Judea or in Gerizim (Bruce 1988, p. 131). Some have related Stephen to the Ebionites, but their rejection of the temple did not emerge until after the year 70. They also would have rejected the view of Stephen that the gospel was also for Gentiles. Bruce considers Stephen's rejection of the temple to be forward looking in a way not characteristic even of other Hellenists of his time (Bruce 1988, p. 132.
Stephen's response in the form of an historical overview was a typical rabbinic practice. It rooted his statements in the works of God among His people (Bruce 1988, p. 132). He ties the rest of the message to Abraham and Moses, counter to the charge that he was speaking against Moses (Bruce 1988, p. 133). The description of Abraham, however, serves to detach the walk of faith from a temple in one location. Additionally, Abraham is used as an example of someone who believed but never actually received the land of promise (Bruce 1988, p. 135).
Acts 7:9-19 continues Stephen's narrative, describing Israel resident in Egypt. Stephen uses the sale of Joseph into slavery as an example of the patriarchs' failure to recognize God's hand of provision (Bruce 1988, p. 136).
In Acts 7:20-29, Stephen reviews the early history of Moses. Again, Bruce notes, Moses was the deliverer appointed by God, but the Israelites were not necessarily receptive to Moses (Bruce 1988, p. 139). Moses' flight from Egypt to the wilderness again shows that God's deliverer may be a person lacking a secure home (Bruce 1988, p. 140).
Acts 7:30-34 again emphasizes God's presence outside of the land of promise, making the place of his self-revelation the holy place (Bruce 1988, p. 140). Bruce notes the emphasis on God's ability to remember his covenants no matter where his people may be (Bruce 1988, p. 141).
Acts 7:35-43 continues the description of God's provision for his people in the wilderness. Bruce observes that as Joseph's brothers first rejected him then later accepted him, and as Moses was first rejected then accepted, Jesus had first been rejected and now must be accepted (Bruce 1988, p. 142). The presence of God was with Israel in the wilderness, but they were disobedient (Bruce 1988, p. 143). Bruce notes that Stephen here affirms Moses but does not affirm Israel. In verses 42-43 Stephen describes the result of Israel's distrust, making idols and worshiping the "hosts of heaven" (Bruce 1988, p. 143). This resulted in their abandonment by God.
Stephen quotes Amos at length. Bruce notes the significant differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts, concluding that both serve as a stern warning (Bruce 1988, p. 143). He notes that Amos may have considered sacrifice to have stopped at the time of the Assyrian exile, while Stephen seems certain that sacrifices continued, but to pagan deities (Bruce 1988, p. 144). Regardless, the people were not faithful to God. They refused to believe His deliverance.
Acts 7:44-50 describes the presence of the tabernacle with the people of Israel up to the time of David (Bruce 1988, p. 146). Bruce notes the significance of the tabernacle. It was the place of God's presence with Israel during all their wanderings, from Moses through the time of David (Bruce 1988, p. 147). God was present with Israel in accord with his revealed promise. In this passage, therefore, Stephen is noting that he is not hostile to a place of God's presence. God was there, but the people rejected his presence. Bruce observes that Stephen makes the same step we see in many early Christians, of not viewing the temple as the fulfillment of God's promise to be with Israel. Rather, Stephen sees this promise fulfilled in Jesus (Bruce 1988, p. 148). Stephen's contention (Acts 7:48) is that while pagan gods can be housed in buildings, the true God cannot (Bruce 1988, p. 149). Jesus and His Church are the true living temple of the living God. Stephen quotes the start of Isaiah 66 to speak of the nature of God's followers (Bruce 1988, p. 150). They are the temple.
Stephen then moves along, in Acts 7:51-53, to press the conclusion of his argument (Bruce 1988, p. 151). Bruce observes that Stephen moves into this conclusion rather abruptly. He calls Israel "stiffnecked" and "disobedient." They act like uncircumcised people (Bruce 1988, p. 152). They are exactly the kind of people who would have persecuted the prophets. Bruce notes that the Jewish leaders had attempted to distance themselves from those behaviors (Matthew 23:30). However, Stephen alleges they still have the same hostility, as evidenced by their advocacy for the death of Jesus.
The Sanhedrin was incensed by Stephen's accusations. In Acts 7:54-56, Stephen apparently saw a vision of Jesus at God's right hand. The reference Stephen made to Jesus was unmistakable to this council which had previously heard Jesus' own testimony (Bruce 1988, p. 154). They judged Stephen as guilty of blasphemy, though Bruce notes Stephen was the one speaking the truth. Bruce discusses the fact that, while Psalm 110:1 depicts the Son of Man sitting, Stephen sees him standing (Bruce 1988, p. 156). Bruce takes the standing posture as significant of the way a witness would stand in court to make statements (Bruce 1988, p. 156). The heavenly court has Jesus as a witness, whose testimony agrees with Stephen. The earthly court is making the wrong decision. Jesus is seen here as superior to the temple, the real presence of God for his people (Bruce 1988, p. 157).
Acts 7:57-60 describes a quick move to execution. Bruce notes that commentators take different views of the execution, with some assigning it to a fanatical mob of bystanders (Bruce 1988, p. 157). Bruce does observe that the presence of witnesses suggests there was a legal execution under a slightly broader view of blasphemy than that of pronouncing God's name (Bruce 1988, p. 158). He notes the presence of Saul at this point, a character who will take on a large role in Acts. Bruce finds no way in which this execution would not be an illegal usurpation of Roman law (Bruce 1988, p. 159). Regardless, it was done, and done quickly. Stephen's last statements are reminiscent of Luke's version of Jesus' last words. However, Stephen's express a high Christology. Jesus is the one who will receive him (Bruce 1988, p. 160).
Acts 8:1a closes the narrative of Stephen by observing that Saul, the Cilician from Tarsus, approved of the execution (Bruce 1988, p. 161). Bruce notes that Saul was not willing to compromise as Gamaliel had been (Acts 5:34-39). His desire was to eliminate Christianity.
RSS Feed