Actes 6:8-15

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

The last first

I. The points in which Stephen was last.

1. His position was entirely subordinate. The deacons were appointed to help the apostles in the lower part of their functions, and even this they did not presume to do without delegation from the apostles. We may imagine, then, the apostles retiring after the ordination to give themselves without distraction to their spiritual exercises. But it was with them as with Moses of old. God took of the Spirit which was upon them and put it on those who were to bear the burden of the people with them. Stephen, etc., became the Eldad and Medad of the New Testament. Nay, Stephen was an Elisha, upon whom a double portion of their spirit rested.

2. Stephen had probably never seen our Lord, but was in all likelihood a pentecostal convert. Otherwise how could such a man have missed nomination to the vacant apostleship? But it pleased the Lord to illustrate in him that the knowledge of Christ after the Spirit is the one requirement for sanctity. “Whom having not seen, ye love.”

3. The apostles had forsaken all to follow Christ, but it nowhere appears that Stephen had gone through similar hardships. His fiery trials blazed out upon him all at once, and the language of our Lord concerning the late-called labourers adapts itself with nicety in his case. He could not be said to have borne the burden and heat of the day. So we learn that God has varieties of trial, and applies them to the different characters of His servants. For Peter there is a long, wearing warfare; for John a wearisome, desolate waiting; for Stephen the letting loose upon him at the opening of his career all the hounds of hell in one fell pack. Us, perhaps, He subjects only to those little crosses which form the burden of daily life. But we must consider that in crosses, as well as comforts, God chooses what is best for us. It is possible to reach a great height of sanctity by submitting quietly and lovingly to ordinary trials.

II. The points in which he became first.

1. He seems to have outstripped the apostles in spiritual intelligence, in appreciation of the breadth, comprehensiveness, and spirituality of the Divine plans. He was the morning star who ushered in the dawn of St. Paul’s ministry. It is evident that the theology of the one was that of the other. St. Peter clung long to Jewish prejudices, and we have no reason to suppose that the other apostles were further advanced.

2. In zeal for his Master’s honour, and devotion to his Master’s cause, Stephen appears to have outstripped his contemporaries. Peter had denied his Lord, and long after, at Antioch, showed that he was not entirely emancipated from moral cowardice. But Stephen from first to last was as bold as a lion.

3. According to the omen conveyed in his name (a crown), he was the first to wear the crown of martyrdom. For most of the apostles it was also in reserve, but when they reached paradise they found Stephen already crowned. The labourer called at the eleventh hour had received his wages before those called in the morning.

4. In the brilliancy and number of his miracles Stephen rivalled if he did not outstrip the apostles (verse 8).

Lessons:

1. We should see contentedly and thankfully many alterations made in the old platform of religious thought. These are days of progress, and old-fashioned and high-principled people are made very sore by novelties. In this adherence to old ways and thoughts there is danger, while at the same time there is a safeguard. Still it is very necessary that sound conservatism does not degenerate into bigotry. Not every new idea and practice turned up by the spade of modern inquiry is bad. And as for keeping the platform of popular theology what it was half a century ago, it is impossible. So we can imagine our early Christians jealous for Christ’s apostles, saying, “I do not like this Stephen: he carries matters too far; his teaching about the temple is audacious.” Yet to Stephen’s view the apostles came round in time.

2. It may be a stimulus to our will in the pursuit of holiness to remember that our last shall be first. Hitherto, maybe, we have made little, if any, proficiency in religion. But if now we are willing to redeem the time, we may advance. The blood and grace of Christ are forces as fresh as ever. (Dean Goulburn.)

Stephen’s miracles and controversies

It is observable that no express mention is made of his performance of deacon’s functions. He shot ahead of his position, and is only known as the brave champion and first martyr of the cause of Christ. Not that we must infer that he was neglectful of the duties of his calling. His routine of daily duty needed not recording.

I. His miracles. Observe how carefully we are guarded against the supposition that he was a mere wonder worker. The historian does not merely record the miracles, but tells us of the secret of them, “Stephen, full of faith,” etc. The man who acts in faith, whether he works a miracle or only achieves some great enterprise for Christ, simply lays hold of the power of God. So in the triumphs of grace. If I win a victory over a besetting sin, or am brought out unharmed from temptation, it is not in my own strength. The Bible knows nothing of inherent strength. The first element of all power is self-distrust. The vine branch has no sap, and consequently no power of fructification of its own; the sap must be sent up from the stem. A little child is quite incompetent to a long walk; but if in confessed impotence it throws itself into his father’s arms, he will entry it through. Sanctification, in its source and efficient cause, is no more inherent than justification. “In the Lord have I righteousness and strength.”

II. His controversies. It was said that in Jerusalem there were 480 synagogues. Among these several would be appropriated to Hellenistic Jews of whom Stephen was probably one, and thus his early associations as well as his office would bring him in contact with the members of these synagogues. It is worth noting that among his opponents were representatives of each of the three continents then known. First that of the Libertines or freedmen, i.e., Jews whose ancestors had been carried captive to Rome by Pompey and others, and had there, in process of time, been emancipated. Many of them would migrate to Jerusalem, and found this synagogue representing the Italian Jews. Cyrene and Alexandria were cities of North Africa. In the former the Jews were a fourth of the population. It was a Cyrenian Jew who bore our Lord’s cross, and another joined in laying hands on Paul. In Alexandria two out of its five districts were inhabited by Jews. These African Hebrews would have their representatives in the holy city, who would build their own church and have their own congregation. The Asiatic opponents of Stephen would be furnished by the representatives of the Jews in Cilicia and Asia. The mention of the former is significant. For St. Paul was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, and according to tradition he appeared as a disputant against Stephen. But the result of the controversy was humiliating to Stephen’s antagonists. “They were not able to resist,” etc. (verse 10). No wonder Christ had stricken controversialists dumb by “the mouth and wisdom” He promised to His disciples. As soon as Stephen’s opponents felt his irresistibility his impeachment was arranged. Lessons:

1. The conditions of successful controversy. The controversy which carries the inner convictions does not necessarily extort open confession. This may be withheld from pride or prejudice as here. How very few controversies are more than a skirmish of words in which both parties are exasperated! Yet truth ought to be able to win its way by its own force. The three qualifications for controversy are, “a mouth,” or power of expression, “wisdom,” or power of argument, and lying deeper and giving effect to both, “a spirit--the Spirit of your Father.” In some modern controversies, nothing but “the mouth” is exhibited, occasionally “wisdom,” but it was “the Spirit” as well as “the wisdom” by which Stephen spoke which his adversaries were unable to resist. The naked logic of the intellect will not by itself convince, but the logic that is seconded by unction carries with it wonderful weight,

2. We may learn from the fact that Stephen’s miracles formed but an introduction to his controversies, breaking open a passage for his arguments to reach the minds and consciences of men. Tell me not of an ecclesiastical authority whose dictates are to be received on its own ipse dixit. Stephen did not say after cleansing a few lepers, etc., “These miracles prove that we are seat from God: now listen to us at the peril of your souls.” He and his colleagues came down into the lowly valley of disputation; they made a public appeal to the Holy Scriptures, and showed that Jesus was the Christ from documents admitted by their opponents. When men who could produce miracles in favour of their teaching entered the arena of controversy, how can any modern communion which has not the attestation of miracles make a claim to be believed on its own unsupported testimony? (Dean Goulburn.)

The first Christian martyr

The Book of Acts is composed upon a definite principle, to wit, what Jesus continued to do and teach after His ascension through the instrumentality of His followers. In the first five Chapter s this principle is illustrated in the doings and sayings of Peter. But when another steps on the arena in whom this truth is shown in a stronger light Peter is at once dropped; in the sixth and seventh Chapter s Stephen it is that occupies the forefront, then Philip, then Paul. The avowed object of the writer is not to show us Peter, but the “hand of the Lord”; and His hand is here more distinctly seen in Stephen than in Peter. Let us look at Stephen as--

I. A man (verse 3).

1. He was an honest man, and had a reputation for honesty. Some people are honest, but they push bargains so hard that their honesty is suspected. “Provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Not only be upright, but convince others of your uprightness. “So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.” “Good understanding”; on the margin, “good success.” An unsullied reputation for integrity helps a man forward even in business--it wins the confidence of the public.

2. Underlying his honesty was his goodness--he was spoken well of by all who knew him. Paul afterwards said that a deacon “must have a good report of them which are without,” i.e., he should not only stand well in the family and in the Church, but in the world. We should first be light; we should then “shine as lights in the world.” “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify”--yourselves? No; but “your Father which is in heaven.” I can look at the wall, but not through the wall; but I can look at and through the window. And a good character should be clear as glass, transparent as light--a character men can not only look at, but look through and see God beyond.

II. A Christian (verse 5).

1. He was “full of faith”--a strong, healthy believer. Some of his fellow members were exceedingly weak in the faith, shy, timid, vacillating; but Stephen’s spiritual life was deep and vigorous. He put unbounded confidence in the new religion; he “held fast his profession.” “By faith the elders obtained good report.” Not a great report, perhaps, but a good one. Other factors, such as learning and riches, are necessary to obtain a great report. But faith alone, if strong, will secure you a good report, which is better than a great one. By this Stephen “still speaketh,” and is still spoken of.

2. He was “full of the Holy Ghost”; and to be “full of the Holy Ghost” is better than to be “full of faith.” Faith at best is only the human aspiring after the Divine; but to be “full of the Holy Ghost” is for the human to possess the Divine. To trust God is good, to have God is better. One may be “full of faith “ and yet not “full of the Holy Ghost.” Many of the Old Testament saints were “full of faith,” but none of them were “full of the Holy Ghost “--this is the sole prerogative of saints under the New Testament• The faith of Abraham has never been excelled, but he fell into sins which could not be tolerated in the Christian Church. The apostles before the Pentecost were “full of faith,” but on the Pentecost were they “filled with the Spirit”; and as a natural consequence a process of refinement was then commenced unknown to the religious experience of the Jewish Church. Under the Old Testament the Holy Ghost was “upon” men, but under the New He is “in” men--a sweetening, hallowing influence, refining the very fibre of our being. The iron cold has the same properties as the iron heated, but the one is black and dull; the other is white and vivid--the fire imparts to it its own qualities. Thus Stephen was pervaded by the refining fire of God. His whole being was transfused with celestial brightness, and therefore his character grew in fineness of texture.

III. A deacon (verse 8).

1. The fifth verse says he was “full of faith,” the eighth (according to the best MSS.) that he was “full of grace.” “Grace” means favour. In its theological sense it signifies the Divine favour shown to sinners. But as used in the context it signifies the favour shown by Stephen to those with whom he came in contact. “Grace” some suppose to have the same etymology as “grease.” Be that as it may; but the body when well “greased” is lithe and nimble, easy in its carriage, graceful in its movements. Now, what grease does to the body, grace does to the soul. Stephen was elected to distribute the charity of the Church. How did he do it? Did he haughtily impress the humble recipients of his bounty with their inferiority? Certainly not. He did it with grace--beautiful ease and comfortable homeliness. Modern Christians may here learn a valuable lesson--not to insult the objects of their beneficence in the very act of succouring them. “Draw out thy soul to the hungry.” Thy money? Not only that, but thy soul. Give alms by all means, but give it with grace. 6, Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.”

2. Being thus “full of grace,” he was of necessity “full of power.” The man devoid of grace cannot in the nature of things wield much influence. But the man habitually kind, polite, and obliging acquires an influence subtle but irresistible in the sphere in which he moves. Judging by the outward show, men are apt to mistake vehemence for power. Lightning is the strong thing in the popular imagination because of the flash and thunder accompanying it. But gravitation, whose voice is never heard, is the central force holding countless worlds in its grip. In like manner the man of wealth, learning, eloquence--the man who can flash and roar--is usually considered the powerful factor. But scan society more narrowly, and you will perceive that none of those things wield so much true power as grace.

3. “He did great wonders and miracles among the people.” The same laws govern society now as then--get the grace and you will infallibly obtain the power. The great need of the present age is not physical but moral wonders. Think of our trains, steam packets, electric telegraphs, and telephones: what physical miracles can outshine these? It is within the reach of all to do wonders and to be wonders in goodness,

IV. A disputant (verse 10).

1. They were “not able to resist the wisdom with which he spake.” He proved victorious in the debate, for two reasons. First, he was evidently a practised logician. His Greek culture and Hebrew studies made him a man of great resource in argument. His speech shows him to be a man of keen philosophic insight. The second and chief reason was that he had truth on his side. The synagogue of the Cilician Jews is mentioned--the very synagogue of which young Saul of Tarsus was a member. This fact, coupled with the profound interest he took in the trial of Stephen, demonstrates conclusively that he was present. Young Saul would unquestionably be quite a match to Stephen in a bare trial of dialectic skill. But Stephen, backed by the truth, was too strong even for Saul. A weak mind, supported by a great truth, can bring about the total discomfiture of the stoutest adversary. The paramount duty of every public teacher is to seek “to be filled with wisdom,” that is, with good, sound, solid information. No amount of eloquence will make up for lack of matter. God can “create out of nothing”; and doubtless He has blessed sermons with little or nothing in them. In Genesis we read but once that He “created out of nothing”; but we read repeatedly that He “created out of something”--the author being very shy of using the stronger word. That is the usual method of the Divine operation still. “The preacher sought to find out acceptable words,” but “the preacher” also “was wise and taught the people knowledge.” The late Rev. Henry Rees, the great Welsh preacher, being asked which kind of sermon he thought most likely the Holy Ghost would bless to the salvation of the hearers, answered, “The sermon most likely to effect their salvation without Him.”

2. His “spirit” was as noteworthy as his wisdom. In a written sermon style is of great consequence. Now, what style is to a written, the spirit is to a spoken sermon. Stephen spoke with a marvellous spirit--he imparted warmth, beauty, life, force to his arguments.

3. “They were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit.” The wisdom alone they could. Dry argument skims only the surface of our nature, it does not stir the depths. “Intellectual preaching” seldom moves people. Moreover, they could resist the “spirit” alone; and in this day of sensationalism it is of some moment that we remember it. Mere “hwyl,” however delightful at the time, leaves our hearers securely immured in sin. But the wisdom and the spirit joined will prove irresistible. Alas! to the cavilling Jews it was the savour of death. If they could not resist his preaching, they could and did resist his person. “They suborned men--they stirred up the people--they caught him and brought him to the council.”

V. A prisoner (verse 11, etc.).

1. The speech he made serves to show--

(1) That he was profoundly versed in the Hebrew literature. It must be remembered that it was delivered at the spur of the moment under circumstances the most embarrassing. I am told that there are twelve discrepancies in it. How to account for them? Simply that Stephen was obliged to address his judges from memory without the chance of correcting himself by reference to the sacred Scriptures. Is it a cause of wonder that, in a review so minute and so searching, the valiant deacon should commit a few trivial mistakes?

(2) His Greek culture and sympathy. It would be almost a matter of sheer impossibility for a man born and bred in Palestine to deliver it. Native Jews like Peter and John dogmatise; Hellenistic Jews like Stephen and Paul philosophise.

(a) Stephen presents the council with a lucid and succinct philosophy of the national history. The same principle he proves to be running through Jewish history from the call of Abraham to the building of the temple. What is that principle? That true religion is independent of any fixed rite or particular locality, and that religious progress has always meant religious change, every change, however, involving progress on the part of God, but stern resistance on the part of man. What if God hath purposed to make another great change in the establishment of Christianity, and what if the Jews like their forefathers were making a resolute stand against it!

(b) The critics are much exercised to know how his speech can be viewed as a refutation of the charge of blasphemy. But they overlook the fact that he does not defend himself except incidentally. His supreme desire is to vindicate not himself, but the truth. Herein Stephen, the martyr of Christianity, contrasts favourably with Socrates, the martyr of philosophy--both alike indicted for blasphemy. Socrates, to his honour be it said, scorned to stoop to any base or unworthy artifice to save his life; his thoughts nevertheless continually reverted to himself. The first personal pronoun bristles through his famous apology. But Stephen has neither “I” nor “me” on his lips so much as once--he wholly forgets himself in his intense eagerness to expound to the council the formative principles and historical career of the kingdom of God.

2. But if his speech was remarkable, his bodily appearance was more remarkable still (verse 15).

(1) Solomon says, “A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.” Notice the young man before his admission to college--his countenance is marked by a certain degree of heaviness and opacity, is devoid of expression for the simple reason that there is behind but little to be expressed. Observe him again at the termination of his course--his features are illuminated, his eyes flash pure intelligence. Put light within a marble vase and it grows translucent. And “the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord”--Light the candle within and the face without will shine.

(2) Now if wisdom is thus able to radiate through the veil of flesh, how much more goodness, and especially goodness and wisdom together? You can tell a good man by his very face. “They took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.” That wickedness stamps itself on the features is an universally acknowledged fact. On the other hand, goodness restores grace to the faded features. Many men and Women, though plain enough from an artistic standpoint, possess indescribable charm. Believe me, young people, nothing will so improve your looks as deep piety. It is significant that the word translated “good” in the New Testament may be also rendered “beautiful.” Stephen was “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” and therefore “they beheld his face as it had been the face of an angel.”

(3) But is this all? I believe not. When Moses returned from Sinai, “the skin of his face shone so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold it.” And the angelic lustre on Stephen’s face was doubtless miraculous. But here as in other instances, the miraculous, so far from obscuring the natural, serves to illustrate it. It brings out into clearer prominence a law which, were it not for the transfiguration of Stephen, of Moses, and of Christ, would escape our attention--that genuine goodness is a Divine light within, whose inevitable tendency it is to make luminous both soul and body. In regeneration this Divine spark is struck, and sanctification is only the theological name for transfiguration. “Be ye transformed in the spirit of your mind”: literally, transfigured--the very same word that is used to describe the transfiguration of Christ. The Divine brightness first makes luminous the dark, dull, obtuse soul, and then the dark, dull, obtuse body. But more especially is this spiritual luminousness to be witnessed upon deathbeds. Friends beautiful in life are still more beautiful in death. Their faces seem to catch the pure beams of eternity like mountain tops the first light of day.

VI. A martyr.

1. Look at the mad fury of his hearers. “They were cut to the heart,” “sawn asunder.” The prophets of old had been “sawn asunder” by their stiffnecked forefathers; now they are “sawn asunder” by the powerful ministry of Stephen. They further “gnashed on him with their teeth.” Only in one other connection is this strong phrase used--“there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” It seems as though the uncontrollable fury of the damned seized the motley crowd. Hell seemed broken loose on the streets of Jerusalem.

2. But if the rabble were wild with rage, Stephen himself was calm and collected.

(1) He first offered a prayer on his own behalf. He next prayed on behalf of his murderers. So deeply had he drunk of the spirit of the Saviour, that he unconsciously quotes His very words. Nowhere outside the religion of the New Testament do we behold such majesty and meekness in the grim presence of death. Pagans may die heroically--Christians only die forgivingly.

(2) No wonder that such a man should see “into heaven.” His body was in a state of incipient transfiguration; his eye, therefore, supernaturally strengthened, pierced beyond the azure, and swept the vast places of eternity. Men in the present day will receive only the testimony of the senses, and because they see not heaven and hell they will not believe. But are they sure the supposed weakness of the proof lies not in the weakness of their vision? Stephen looking stedfastly into heaven, “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” And if credit is to be given--and why not?--to the dying testimony of saints, his is not a solitary case.

(3) But not only he saw into heaven, but heaven itself was “opened.” There was an elevation of the human--there was also a condescension of the Divine. Under the Old Dispensation “the way into the Holiest of All was not made manifest”; but now heaven is “opened.” “After this I looked, and behold, a door was opened in heaven”--standing open. Since Christ entered, the doors have been standing open--to offer shelter and home to the weary and persecuted pilgrims. “I see … the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” This is the only instance except twice in the Apocalypse that Jesus after His ascension is called Son of Man. Why called so here? Because He was an object clearly discerned by the bodily eyes of Stephen. To the eyes of faith lie is Jesus or Christ or Lord; to the eyes of the body He will for ever be the Son of Man. When St. John thinks or writes of Him, He is always the Son of God; but when St. John is rapt up in vision He is the Son of Man. When He first ascended He “sat” to elbow His indisputable right to be there; but having established His right, lie sits or stands as occasion requires. Stephen sees Him standing--eagerly watching this momentous crisis in the history of the Church. And with this magnificent panorama floating before his view, the intrepid martyr “fell asleep”--“to sleep, aye, perchance to dream.” This sleep of Stephen has given to our burial grounds the Christian name of “cemeteries”--they are places where our friends sleep; and “if they sleep, they will do well.” (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

“Grace and power”

(R.V.):--These two words, “grace and power,” are closely connected. Their union here is significant. It was not the intellect, or the eloquence, or the activity of St. Stephen which made him powerful among the people, and crowned his labours with such success. It was his abundant grace. Eloquence, and learning, active days and laborious nights, are good and necessary things. God uses them and demands them from His people. He chooses to use human agencies, and therefore demands that the human agents shall give Him of their best, and not offer to Him the blind and lame of their flock. But these things will be utterly useless and ineffective apart from Christ and the power of His grace. (G. T. Stokes, D. D.)

Then there arose certain of the synagogue … of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.--

Stephen disputing in the synagogues

I. The sphere. Amongst the four hundred and eighty synagogues which existed in Jerusalem at this time some were frequented exclusively by the Jews of the Dispersion. Families which had removed from the same region of heathenism to settle for devotion or trade in the holy city clustered together for daily prayer in the same congregation; exactly as to this day in Jerusalem Spanish Jews (called Sephardim), who have dwelt there since 1497, are only to be found in their four synagogues, and German and Polish Jews (called Ashkenazim)in others. Here they fall naturally into three divisions.

1. The Libertines (Libertini), or Freed-men from Rome. Some ninety years had now passed since Pompey carried off a multitude of Jewish captives; and their descendants, most of them manumitted by their masters, had either settled in the Trastavere, on the right bank of the Tiber, or been banished from Italy. It is possible that many of the four thousand whom Tiberius deported to Jardinia (a.d. 19) had found their way to their own land.

2. The Jews from North Africa, from Alexandria, and Cyrene, the capital of Libya, and where Tripoli now stands, both of which swarmed with Hebrews.

3. Asiatic Jews, from the province known in official language as “Asia,” and always called so in the New Testament, from Cilicia, whose capital gave birth to Saul.

II. With these various representatives of Hellenised Judaism the Church now came for the first time in contact. The elevation of Stephen had this for its result, that his spiritual and intellectual gifts found a wider and more public sphere. His duties brought him in contact with the poor brethren of his own section of the Church, and through them with their unbelieving neighbours. These opportunities he used for the preaching of the gospel. Stephen was much more than an almoner. He was a deep student of tim Old Testament, a theologian of unusual insight, a powerful reasoner, and an advanced Christian. In him we first find those gifts of healing which Jesus had given the apostles exercised by a man who was no apostle. In him, too, we find the promise fulfilled which had hitherto been fulfilled to Peter (Luc 21:15). His manner of speech, however, was unlike that of Peter. Peter was a witness, and preached by witness-bearing. Stephen was a student, and preached by exposition and controversy. These synagogues, to which no doubt he belonged, were homes of learning and bigotry. Intense enough and terribly sincere were the disputants whom Stephen encountered, but proud, narrow, self-righteous, and bitter; just the men to argue themselves into a bad temper, and, when beaten in logic, to fall to abuse.

III. We are left to gather the subject of dispute from the result. From the charge brought against Stephen, from the evidence of the witnesses, and from his own defence, we gather that that great question was the bearing of the new faith on the old system.

1. In his earliest sermons Peter had hinted that the advent of Jesus, His passion and resurrection, formed the consummation towards which Mosaism pointed, the accomplishment of the great hope which all the prophets had foretold, and for which Israel waited. This constructive teaching was not unpopular, and orthodox Jews did not cease to be so upon baptism. Up to this time the question had not been raised, What if the Jewish hierarchy and commonwealth reject it? Now, however, it was getting to be not unlikely that the Sanhedrin might excommunicate the Church. Suppose it did, was that to be conclusive against the Church? Must the new economy be fettered by the limitations of the old? Nay, did not the very coming of Him to whom the whole symbolic ritual pointed require its abolition, and initiate of necessity a new worship?

2. How far Stephen went in this direction it is impossible to tell, but on it his face was set. He was the first man who dared to think that the gospel was a Divine step forward, which existing institutions might refuse to accept, and in that case have to be dispensed with. He probably went a good way in depreciation of the Mosaic system. To be sure the false witnesses misrepresented him as his Master was misrepresented. Still Stephen must have said something like it, nor is it hard to guess in what sense he said it. The whole of Mosaic worship on its external national side was anchored on the rock on which the temple stood. There was nowhere else any altar, priesthood, etc. Moreover, the current faith of the people believed in all this external system, and in little else. So long as that stood, God was propitious and Israel blest; no matter how full the temple was of cheating or Jerusalem of uncleanness. This was the system which threatened to reject the gospel. As it had slain Christ, it seemed about to cut off from its fellowship Christ’s Church. What did recent events prognosticate? The downfall of Christ’s cause over the temple system? Stephen had read the history of his nation with other eyes than those of the rabbis. Underneath all the changes of Hebrew story he had learned to trace a Divine progress towards some spiritual end. He had not found in this latest phase of national religious life such a finality as his countrymen dreamed of. The most material, local, and unspiritual of all forms of Hebrew worship did not seem the form likely to be everlasting. But one thing he had found to mark the whole of his ancestral history. As often as God had led Israel forward through a moment of change into a fresh spiritual epoch of blessing, so often had His purpose been rejected by the bulk of Israel. This they were doing now, by idolising a material temple and rejecting a spiritual Christ.

Here is the key to Stephen’s long defence, which maintained--

1. That a mode of worship limited to a single spot and a fixed ritual was by no means essential to God’s service, but had been late in its origin and temporary in its purpose--being only one most recent stage in a very long and gradual process of Divine manifestation.

2. That at every critical turning in Israel’s history Israel had mistaken the leadings of God, and resisted those who were sent to save it. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.)

And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.--

The source of ministerial power

It is impossible to listen to the ministrations of others or to watch carefully our own without perceiving great inequalities in respect of power. You will observe many devoted men who are amiable in their characters, zealous in their ministry, whose sermons are carefully prepared, who preach the truth faithfully, while, on the other hand, there is but little in their ministry of “the demonstration of the Spirit and power.” On the other hand, you often see men of less intellectual calibre who produce an impression which even the unconverted cannot fail to feel. And this inequality is scarcely less observable in regard to one individual. You may frequently hear a sermon full of power in the morning, and one decidedly feeble, from the same minister, in the evening; and if you could ascertain the preacher’s own opinion, you would find, in all probability, that he was best satisfied with the one which the people found the feeblest. Now, it is clear that this gift of power is pre-eminently the want of the Church of God, both at home and abroad. Note--

I. Stephen’s power. It was--

1. The power of persuasion (verse 7).

2. It was a power in controversial defence of truth (verse 9).

3. It was the power of searching and probing the heart to the very quick (Actes 7:54).

4. But there is one thing to remark, and it is this--when we look for power, we must not look for an easy, smooth, pleasant, triumphant victory. Stephen had all the power of which we speak, but it called forth the angry passions of the wicked, so that they rose up against him, and he fell the first martyr to the truth. Stephen’s power, however, is just the very thing we want. We want persuasive power to bring in men, we want controversial power to maintain the truth, and we want heart-searching power to awaken sinners, even if it provoke them. This is the power to be sought and prayed for by the whole Church of God.

II. Its sources.

1. Wisdom. There was the same connection between wisdom and power in Micah, “Now then, I am full of power, of the Spirit of the Lord, of wisdom, and of might.” There is the same connection in the prophecies of our blessed Saviour (Ésaïe 11:1.)--the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, was given to him. Light words, conceits, affectations, and outward display overthrow all thoughts of power. The man of God wants wisdom. He has to unfold the deep things of God, and he must not go lightly to the work. He is a steward in the Lord’s household; he has to deal with a multitude of different dispositions, under different circumstances. Stephen’s wisdom was pre-eminently Scriptural. There is only one of his discourses preserved, and that one is full of Scripture. He was not one of those who thought his own reason was anything when compared with the wisdom of God. He was not ashamed to draw all his conclusions from the Bible, and to base the whole fabric of his reasonings simply upon Scripture. The clearest evidence of the most consummate folly is the venturing forth in the strength of your own understandings. There may be wisdom in the simplest cottager, or the youngest child, far exceeding the loftiest flights of merely intellectual philosophy, Nor does it require anything extraordinary either in intellect or eloquence to produce such wisdom, for the Psalmist says, “I have more understanding than all my teachers; for Thy testimonies are my meditation. I know more than the ancients, because I keep Thy precepts.”

2. Faith. The connection between faith and power is a union frequently recurring. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Abraham “was strong in faith,” but that may refer to one simple single act; “full of faith” implies that the whole mind and character were completely imbued with it. It was like St. Paul, when he said, “The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.” But how is this faith displayed?

(1) In dependence. It is the office of faith to lean. Self-satisfied men are confident in their own powers and do not care to lean. Timid, doubting souls are so perplexed by their misgivings that they are almost afraid to lean, but the sinner who knows his nothingness leans his whole weight on Christ. So it is in our own personal experience. Men are very apt to lean with one hand on Christ, and one hand on resolutions, or on the Church, or on the sacraments; “but we must learn to lean with both hands on Christ,” and to lean the whole weight; and when you so begin to lean you will first taste the joy of peace and power. Men may go forth to preach leaning upon the excellences of a previous education, or on the advantages of his early youth. But what are these for the great work we have to do?

(2) In expectation, for “faith is the substance of things asked for.” If we pray for pardon without expectation of receiving it, or for the Holy Spirit without opening the heart in the full hope of his sacred entrance, or if we send men in the Lord’s name, or go forth ourselves, to preach the gospel without expectations, where can be our faith? And is not this one reason why there is no more power in the Church of God? Do we not meet Sunday after Sunday with very little practical belief that souls will be born again through the preached Word? Perhaps a man begins with sanguine expectation, but after some months or years of hard toil he is ready to say with Peter, “We have toiled all night and taken nothing.” Stephen was full of power; but he was first full of faith. He could grasp a fast hold of the Saviour, and so they were “not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.”

3. All his wisdom, faith, and power were to be traced to a yet higher source--he was first full of the Holy Ghost. This has always been so. Micah was full of power, and he says, “Truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord.” The great mountain shall melt before Zerubbabel; but “Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” Paul went to Corinth, not “with excellency of speech, or man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power.” In Thessalonica his “ministry came not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and with much assurance.” Even Stephen and Peter and all the rest were powerless until the Spirit of God came, and then they were full of power, and soon thousands were added to the Church. It is clear, therefore, that if we desire power in our ministry, we must seek first for the gift promised by our blessed Lord and Saviour in Jean 14:17. In Stephen’s case the two promises were fulfilled. The Spirit was with him, so that opposing powers were overcome under the influence of the Spirit. He was in him, so that when the stones were dashed at him there was a calm spirit of well-supported prayer. Conclusion: There is a mighty conflict raging--every day the conflict thickens. Depend upon it that these are not days for an easy, tranquil, indulgent Christianity. I might ask for money; I might ask for men--and we want them even more than money--but the great want is power to strengthen the whole Church of God. What is the use of men if God does not make them men of power? We do not want mere ecclesiastical machines, because we do not believe in mere ecclesiastical machinery. We want men filled with wisdom, faith, and the Holy Ghost. (E. Hoare, M. A.)