THE MESSAGE OF ACTS
A Commentary by John Stott

(Study 11)

Acts 6:8-7:60.  Stephen the martyr

After the coming of the Spirit and the counter-attack of Satan (whose overthrow Luke has celebrated in 6:7), the church is almost ready to initiate its world-wide mission. So far it has been composed only of Jews and restricted to Jerusalem. Now, however the Holy Spirit is about to thrust its people out into the wider world, and the apostle Paul (Luke's hero) is to be God's chosen instrument to pioneer this development. But first, in the next six chapters of Acts, Luke explains how the foundations of the Gentile mission were laid by two remarkable men (Stephen the martyr and Philip the evangelist), followed by two remarkable conversions (Saul the Pharisee and Cornelius the centurion). These four men, each in his own way, together with Peter, through whose ministry Cornelius was converted, made an indispensable contribution to the global expansion of the church. Stephen the martyr came first (6:8-8:2). His preaching aroused strenuous Jewish opposition, but in his carefully reasoned defence before the Sanhedrin he emphasized the freedom of the living God to go where he pleases and to call his people to go forth too. Although he failed to convince the Council and was stoned to death, his martyrdom seems to have had a profound influence on Saul of Tarsus. It also led to the scattering of the disciples throughout Judea and Samaria. Philip the evangelist (8:4-40) had the distinction of being both the first to share the good news with the despised Samaritans and the means by which the Jewish-Samaritan barrier was broken. He then led the first African to Christ, the Ethiopian eunuch, and baptized him.

The simultaneous conversion and commissioning of Saul the Pharisee (9:1-31) were an indispensable prelude to the Gentile mission, since he was called to be pre-eminently the apostle to the Gentiles.  Cornelius the centurion (10:1-11:18) was the very first Gentile to be converted and welcomed into the church. The gift of the Spirit to him plainly authenticated his inclusion in the  Messianic community on the same terms as Jews, and so overcame the narrow Jewish prejudice of the apostle Peter.  Only after these four men had played their part in Luke's developing story was the scene set for the first missionary journey recorded in Acts 13 and 14.  Luke has already introduced Stephen. As one of the Seven, he was `full of the Spirit and wisdom' (6:3). He himself is then described as `full of faith and the Holy Spirit' (6:5), and now he is reintroduced as *a man full of God's grace and power* (6:8a).  Filled with the Spirit, and so filled also with wisdom, faith, grace and power, he evidently gave people an impression of plenitude.  `Grace and power' form a striking combination, which Campbell Morgan explains as `sweetness and strength... merged in one personality'. Certainly, `grace' seems to indicate a gracious, Christianlike character, while his `power' was seen in the *great wonders and miraculous signs* which he did *among the people* (8b). So far signs and wonders have been credited by Luke only to Jesus (2:22) and the apostles (2:43; 5:12); now for the first time others are said to perform them. Some conclude that Stephen (6:8) and Philip (8:6) were special cases, both because the apostles had   laid their hands on them (6:6), thus including them within their own apostolic ministry, and because they occupied a special place in salvation history, in the transition from Jewish movement to world mission. But this cannot be proved. Stephen and Philip are certainly witnesses to the fact that, even if according to Luke signs and wonders were mainly limited to the apostles, this restriction was not absolute. 

Yet in spite of all Stephen's outstanding qualities, his ministry provoked fierce antagonism. We are not yet told why, but it is explained that the *opposition arose...from members of the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)*. Also mentioned are *Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia (9a). The `freedmen' (*liberinoi*, a Greek transliteration of a Latin word) were freed slaves and their descendants. But who were the Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia? Some think that they composed four distinct synagogues, with the freedmen making a fifth. Others think two, three or four synagogues are in mind. But perhaps it is best to understand with the NIV that Luke is referring to only one synagogue (for the word is in the singular). The NEB also takes it in this way, describing the synagogue as `comprising' people from the four main places mentioned. Because they had been freed from slavery, they must have been foreign Jews who had now come to live in Jerusalem. Perhaps those from Cilicia even included Saul of Tarsus. At all events, Stephen's appointment as one of the Seven, entrusted with the care of the widows, did not necessitate his resignation as a preacher, for it was to his message that these synagogue members objected.

First, *these men began to argue with Stephen (9b). But* they had not reckoned with the calibre of the man they were opposing, for *they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by which he spoke*(10, meaning perhaps `the inspired  wisdom with which he spoke' (NEB). This was a fulfilment of the promise of Jesus, which Luke has recorded, that he would give his followers `words and wisdom' which their adversaries would be unable to resist or contradict (Lk.21:15; cf.12:12). 

Secondly, thwarted in open debate, Stephen's opponents started a smear campaign against him, for when arguments fail, mud has often seemed an excellent substitute. So *they secretly persuaded some men* - presumably by bribery - to allege `*We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God*' (11). In this way *they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law* (12a).

Thirdly, *they seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin* (12b), and then *produced false witnesses* (13a). Thus the opposition degenerated from theology through slander to violence. The same order of events has often been repeated. At the first there is serious theological debate. When this fails, people start a personal campaign of lies. Finally, they resort to legal or quasi-legal action in an attempt to rid themselves of their adversary by force. Let others use these weapons against us; may we be delivered from resorting to them
ourselves!

After this introduction to Stephen, Luke first clarifies the accusation which was levelled at him (6:13-15), then summarizes the defence he made before the Council (7:1-53), and finally describes the summary sentence which was carried out, in other words his death by stoning (7:54-60).

Acts 6:13-15.   1). Stephen is accused

The rumour which had been circulated was that Stephen had blasphemed against Moses and against God.(11). Now before the Sanhedrin the false witnesses elaborated the charge: `*This fellow never stops speaking against the holy place and against the law*' (13). We pause to note that this was an extremely serious double accusation. For nothing was more sacred to the Jews, and nothing more precious, than their temple and their law. The temple was `the holy place', the sanctuary of God's presence, and the law was  `holy scripture', the revelation of God's mind and will.  Therefore, since the temple was God's house and the law was God's word, to speak against either was to speak against God or, in other words, to blaspheme.

But in what sense did Stephen speak against the temple and the law? The false witnesses explained: `*For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs of Moses handed down to us*' (14). Stephen's words against the temple and the law are thus seen to be his teaching about what Jesus of Nazareth would do to both. But was Stephen right? Was Jesus an iconoclast, who had threatened to destroy the temple and change the law, thus robbing Israel of her two most treasured possessions and even opposing God who gave them?  Certainly Jesus had been accused of this, and it is safe to assume that Stephen was faithfully echoing his teaching.

So what did Jesus say about the temple and the law? First, he said that he would replace the temple. `We have heard him say,' false witnesses had testified, `"I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man"' (Mk.14:58; cf.15:29; Mt.26:61). His hearers thought he meant this literally, and asked: `It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' (Jn.2:20). `But', John comments. `the temple he had spoken of was his body' (Jn.2:21), both his resurrection body which was raised on the third day, and also his spiritual body, the church, which would take the place of the material temple. Thus Jesus dared to speak of himself as God's new temple replacing the old. `I tell you', he declared, `that one greater than the temple is here.' (Mt.12:6). In consequence, although in the past the people came together to the temple to meet God, in future the meeting place with God would be himself.

Secondly, Jesus said that he would fulfil the law. He was of course accused of disrespect for the law, for example in relation to the Sabbath. But the scribes and Pharisees did not understand him. What he did was to contradict the scribal misinterpretations of Moses, and so sweep away all traditions of the elders. But he was never disrespectful to the law itself. On the contrary, he said: `Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.' (Mt. 5:17). In particular, his resolve to lay down his life for us would fulfil all priesthood and sacrifice.

What Jesus taught, then, was that the temple and the law would be superseded, meaning not that they had never been divine gifts in the first place, but that they would find their God-intended fulfilment in him, the Messiah. Jesus was and is himself the replacement of the temple and the fulfilment of the law. Moreover, to affirm that both the temple and the law pointed  forward to him and are now fulfilled in him is to magnify their importance, not to denigrate it.

So far as we can tell, Stephen was teaching much the same as Jesus taught. The false witnesses accused him of saying that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple and change the law. That is, they portrayed the work of Christ in negative, destructive terms. But what Stephen was really doing was preaching Christ, positively and constructively, as the One in whom all that the Old Testament foretold and foreshadowed is fulfilled, including the temple and the law.

At this point *all who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel* (15). It is surely significant that the Council, gazing at the prisoner in the dock, should see his face shining like an angel's, for this is exactly what happened to Moses' face when he came down from Mount Sinai with the law (Ex. 34:29ff). Was it not God's deliberate purpose to give the same radiant face to Stephen when he was accused of opposing the law as he had given to Moses when he received the law? In this way God was showing that both Moses' ministry of the law and Stephen's interpretation of it had his approval. Indeed God's blessing on Stephen is evident throughout. The grace and power of his ministry (8), his irresistible wisdom (10) and his shining face (13) were all tokens that the favour of God rested upon him.

Acts 7:1-53.  Stephen makes his defence

Many students of Stephen's speech have criticized it as rambling, dull and even incoherent. A good example is George Bernard Shaw in his preface to *Androcles and the Lion*. Calling Stephen `a quite intolerable young speaker' and `a tactless and conceited bore', he describes him as having `delivered an oration to the council, in which he ...inflicted on them a tedious sketch of the history of Israel, with which they were presumably as well acquainted as he'. Others have found his speech lacking not only in interest but in point. Dibelius, for instance, wrote of `the irrelevance of most of this speech'. Such negative assessments of  Stephen's oratory are by no means universal, however. William Neil  even calls his speech `a subtle and skilful proclamation of the gospel'. 

It is important to bear in mind the nature and purpose of  Stephen's speech. After the two serious accusations had been levied at him, the high priest challenged him with the direct question: *Are these charges true?* (7:1). So Stephen needed to defend himself against them in such a way as to develop an *apologia* for his radical gospel. What he did was not just to rehearse the salient features of the Old Testament story, with which the Sanhedrin were as familiar as he,  but to do it in such a way as to draw lessons from it which they had never learned or even noticed. His concern was to demonstrate that his position, far from being `blasphemous' because disrespectful to God's word,  actually honoured it. For Old Testament Scripture itself confirmed his teaching about the temple and the law, especially by predicting the Messiah, whereas by rejecting him it was they who disregarded the law, not he. Stephen's mind had evidently soaked up the Old Testament, for his speech is like a patchwork of allusions to it. 

a). The temple
It was not because of its architectural magnificence that the Jews prized the temple, but because God had promised to `put his Name' there and to meet his people there. Several psalms bear witness to Israel's consequent love for the temple. For example, `One thing I ask of the Lord, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple.' (Ps. 27:4; cf. pss. 15:42-43,84,122,134, 147,150). This was right. But many drew a false conclusion. They conceived of Yahweh as so completely identified with the temple that its existence guaranteed his protection of them, while its destruction would mean that he had abandoned them. It was against these notions that the prophets inveighed (eg. Je.7:4). Long before them, however, as Stephen pointed out, the great figures of the Old Testament never imagined that God was imprisoned in a building. 

What Stephen did was to pick out four major epochs of  Israel's history, dominated by four major characters. First he highlighted Abraham and the patriarchal age (7:2-8); then Joseph and the Egyptian exile (9-19); thirdly Moses, the exodus and the wilderness wanderings (20-44); and lastly David and Solomon, and the establishment of the monarchy (45-50). The connecting feature of these four epochs is that in none of them was God's presence limited to any particular place. On the contrary, the God of the Old Testament was a living God, a God on the move and on the march, who was always calling his people out to fresh adventures, and always accompanying and directing them as they went.

(i) Abraham. (7:2-8)
It is no accident that Stephen describes Yahweh as *the God of glory*, for his `glory' is his self-manifestation, and Stephen is about to give details of how he made himself known to Abraham.  He *appeared* to him first *while he was still in Mesopotamia*, specifically in Ur of the Chaldeans (Gn.11:28), while he and his family `worshipped other gods' (Jos.24:2). Yet even in that idolatrous context God appeared and spoke to Abraham, telling him to uproot himself from his home and people and migrate to another country which he would later show him. Some commentators regard Stephen as having made a mistake in this, because they deduce from Genesis 11:31 - 12:1 that God's command to Abraham was given him at Haran, not Ur. But Genesis 12:1 can be translated, `The Lord had said to Abram' (NIV), suggested that what he told him in Haran was actually confirmation of what he had already said to him in Ur. Certainly God later announced himself to Abram as `the Lord, who brought you out of  Ur of the Chaldeans...', and both Joshua and Nehemiah bear witness to this (Gn.15:7; Jos.24:3; Ne.9:7), So Abram left Ur *and settled in Haran*. But from there *God sent him* on his next stage of his journey to the land of Canaan. *He gave him no inheritance* in it, however, *not even a foot of ground*, but instead *promised* that *his descendants* though at the time he had no child) *would posses the land*. At the same time, even they would not inherit it immediately, for first they were to be *strangers in a country not their own*, where they would be both *enslaved and ill-treated for four hundred years* (Stephen is content with the round figure, although the precise length of their slavery was 430 years). (cf.Gn.15:13; Ex.12:40-41). Even during their cruel servitude God had neither forgotten nor forsaken them; he intervened to *punish the nation* which had enslaved them and so to rescue them from their bondage. (7). 

We cannot miss Stephen's emphasis on the divine initiative. It was God who appeared, spoke, sent, promised, punished and rescued. From Ur to Haran, from Haran to Canaan, from Canaan to Egypt, from Egypt back to Canaan again, God was directing each stage of his people's pilgrimage. Although the whole fertile crescent from the River Euphrates to the River Nile was the scene of their migrations, God was with them. Why was this? It was because *he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision* (8), that  is, made a solemn promise to Abraham to bless him and his posterity, and gave him circumcision to signify and seal the covenant, So, long before there was a holy place, there was a holy people, to whom God had pledged himself. He then renewed the promise he had made to Abraham, first to his son Isaac, then to his grandson Jacob, and then to his great grandsons *the twelve patriarchs* (8b). Thus Stephen makes the transition from Abraham to Joseph, the second great figure of the Old Testament he singles out (9-16).

 

Next.  Acts 7:1-53. 2). Stephen makes his defence (continued)


Many students of Stephen's speech have criticized it as rambling, dull and even incoherent. A good example is George Bernard Shaw in his preface to *Androcles and the Lion*. Calling Stephen `a quite intolerable young speaker' and `a tactless and conceited bore', he describes him as having `delivered an oration to the council, in which he ...inflicted on them a tedious sketch of the history of Israel, with which they were presumably as well acquainted as he'. Others have found his speech lacking not only in interest but in point. Dibelius, for instance, wrote of `the irrelevance of most of this speech'. Such negative assessments of Stephen's oratory are by no means universal, however. William Neill even calls his speech `a subtle and skilful proclamation of the gospel'.

It is important to bear in mind the nature and purpose of Stephen's speech. After the two serious accusations had been levied at him, the high priest challenged him with the direct question: *Are these charges true?* (7:1). So Stephen needed to defend himself against them in such a way as to develop an *apologia* for his radical gospel. What he did was not just to rehearse the salient features of the Old Testament story, with which the Sanhedrin were as familiar as he,  but to do it in such a way as to draw lessons from it which they had never learned or even noticed. His concern was to demonstrate that his position, far from being `blasphemous' because disrespectful to God's word, actually honoured it. For Old Testament Scripture itself confirmed his teaching about the temple and the law, especially by predicting the Messiah, whereas by rejecting him it was they who disregarded the law, not he. Stephen's mind had evidently soaked up the Old Testament, for his speech is like a patchwork of allusions to it.

a)  The temple
It was not because of its architectural magnificence that the Jews prized the temple, but because God had promised to `put his Name' there and to meet his people there. Several psalms bear witness to Israel's consequent love for the temple. For example, `One thing I ask of the Lord, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple.' (Ps. 27:4; cf. pss. 15:42-43,84,122,134, 147,150). This was right. But many drew a false conclusion. They conceived of Yahweh as so completely identified with the temple that its existence guaranteed his protection of them, while its destruction would mean that he had abandoned them. It was against these notions that the prophets inveighed (eg. Je.7:4). Long before them, however, as
Stephen pointed out, the great figures of the Old Testament never imagined that God was imprisoned in a building.

What Stephen did was to pick out four major epochs of Israel's history, dominated by four major characters. First he highlighted Abraham and the patriarchal age (7:2-8); then Joseph and the Egyptian exile (9-19); thirdly Moses, the exodus and the wilderness wanderings (20-44); and lastly David and Solomon, and the establishment of the monarchy (45-50). The connecting feature of these four epochs is that in none of them was God's presence limited to any particular place. On the contrary, the God of the Old Testament was a living God, a God on the move and on the march, who was always calling his people out to fresh adventures,
and always accompanying and directing them as they went.

(i) Abraham. (7:2-8)
It is no accident that Stephen describes Yahweh as *the God of glory*, for his `glory' is his self-manifestation, and Stephen is about to give details of how he made himself known to Abraham.  He *appeared* to him first *while he was still in Mesopotamia*, specifically in Ur of the Chaldeans (Gn.11:28), while he and his family `worshipped other gods' (Jos.24:2). Yet even in that idolatrous context God appeared and spoke to Abraham, telling him to uproot himself from his home and people and migrate to another country which he would later show him. Some commentators regard Stephen as having made a mistake in this, because they deduce from Genesis 11:31 - 12:1 that God's command to Abraham was given him at Haran, not Ur. But Genesis 12:1 can be translated, `The Lord had said to Abram' (NIV), suggested that what he told him in Haran was actually confirmation of what he had already said to him in Ur. Certainly God later announced himself to Abram as `the Lord, who brought you out of  Ur of the Chaldeans...', and both Joshua and Nehemiah bear witness to this (Gn.15:7; Jos.24:3; Ne.9:7).   So Abram left Ur *and settled in Haran*. But from there *God sent him* on his next stage of his journey to the land of Canaan. *He gave him no inheritance* in it, however, *not even a foot of ground*, but instead *promised* that *his descendants* though at the time he had no child) *would posses the land*. At the same time, even they would not inherit it immediately, for first they were to be *strangers in a country not their own*, where they would be both *enslaved and ill-treated for four hundred years* (Stephen is content with the round figure, although the precise length of their slavery was 430 years). (cf.Gn.15:13; Ex.12:40-41). Even during their cruel servitude God had neither forgotten nor forsaken them; he intervened to *punish the nation* which had enslaved them and so to rescue them from their bondage.(7)

We cannot miss Stephen's emphasis on the divine initiative.  It was God who appeared, spoke, sent, promised, punished and rescued. From Ur to Haran, from Haran to Canaan, from Canaan to Egypt, from Egypt back to Canaan again, God was directing each stage of his people's pilgrimage. Although the whole fertile crescent from the River Euphrates to the River Nile was the scene of their migrations, God was with them. Why was this? It was because *he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision* (8), that is, made a solemn promise to Abraham to bless him and his posterity, and gave him circumcision to signify and seal the covenant.  So, long before there was a holy place, there was a holy people, to whom God had pledged himself. He then renewed the promise he had made to Abraham, first to his son Isaac, then to his grandson Jacob, and then to his great grandsons *the twelve patriarchs* (8b). Thus Stephen makes the transition from Abraham to Joseph, the second great figure of the Old Testament he singles out (9-16).


Stephen's Defence - (ii) Joseph (7:9-16)
We note at once that, if Mesopotamia was the surprising context in which God appeared to Abraham (7:2). Egypt was the equally surprising scene of God's dealings with Joseph. Six times in seven verses Stephen repeats the word `Egypt', as if to make sure that his hearers have grasped its significance. This was the`country not their own' in which Abraham's descendants would be strangers and slaves for 400 years (6), and it was owing to the patriarchs' jealousy of their younger brother Joseph that the migration took place (9). Though Joseph was now a foreigner and a
slave in Egypt, however, *God was with him* (9). In consequence, God *rescued him from all his troubles* (the `troubles' being a euphemism for his unjust imprisonment by Potiphar), and *gave* him *wisdom* (especially to interpret dreams), so that he gained *the goodwill of Pharaoh* and was promoted to be *ruler over Egypt* (10).
God was not only with Joseph but also with all his family, for he saved them from starvation during the famine (11). The venue for this divine deliverance was Egypt too. Stephen outlines the three visits to Egypt paid by Joseph's brothers, the first to
get grain (12), the second when Joseph made himself known to them (13), and the third when they brought their father Jacob with them, together with their wives and children, making *seventy-five in all* (14). This is the number given in the LXX translation of Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, although the Hebrew text in both
verses has seventy, the discrepancy being probably due to whether Joseph's sons are included in the total or not. It is difficult for us to imagine, and indeed Stephen does not mention, how traumatic this descent into Egypt must have been to Jacob. He surely knew that in an earlier famine the Lord had specifically forbidden his father Isaac to `go down to Egypt', telling him instead to remain in the promised land. (Gen.26:1ff). Did this ban include Jacob too? It was doubtless to allay Jacob's qualms that at Beersheba, near the border between Canaan and Egypt, God told him in a night vision not to be afraid to `go down to Egypt', for he would go down with him, bless him there and ultimately bring him back (Gen.46:1ff; cf. 28:10ff.). So *Jacob went down to Egypt* (15). And there he and his sons died, far from the promised land, to which they never returned. Only *their bodies were brought back* to be buried (16).

There were two patriarchal burial grounds in Canaan. The first was the field and cave of Machpelah near Hebron, which Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite (Gen.23); the second was a plot of ground near Shechem, which Jacob bought from the sons of
Hamor (Gen.33:18-20). Some commentators have made fun of Stephen (or Luke) for confusing these, since he speaks of Abraham buying the Shecham tomb, instead of Jacob. But it is antecedently unlikely that Stephen, with his intimate knowledge of the Old Testament, would have made this mistake. It is better to conclude either that Jacob bought the Shechem burial ground in Abraham's name, since he was still alive at the time, or that, in giving an omnibus account of the burial of all the patriarchs, Stephen deliberately conflated the two sites, since Jacob was buried at
his own request in the field of Machpelah (Gen.47:29-30; 49:29-33; 50:12-14), whereas Joseph's bones were buried many years later at Shechem. (Gen.50:26; Jos.24:32).

(iii) Moses (7:17-43)

Stephen's third epoch (17-43) was dominated by Moses, through whose ministry God kept his promises to Abraham which had seemed to be in abeyance. Perhaps Stephen's handling of Moses' career (which he divides into three forty- year periods is longer and fuller than his account of the others because he had been accused of speaking against Moses (6:11). He leaves his judges in no doubt of his immense respect for Moses' leadership and law-giving.  The Israelites' exile and slavery in Egypt lasted for four bitter centuries. Had God forgotten his people, and his promise to bless them? No. He had warned Abraham of their 400 years of enslavement and mistreatment (6). But now at last *the time drew near* (the set time, for God is the lord of history) *for God to fulfil his promise to Abraham* (17a). God had actually made Abraham two promises, namely to give him both a seed (numerous descendants) and a land (Canaan). See Gn.12:1-3; 15:18-21; 22:15-18). The first promise was being fulfilled even during their Egyptian captivity, for *the number of our people in Egypt greatly increased* (17b). But how would the promise of the land be fulfilled? Only after much suffering. For another Pharaoh *became ruler of Egypt* who, knowing nothing about Joseph, `exploited' (JB) the Israelites and *oppressed* them, even *forcing them to throw out their newborn babies* (18-19).  It was *at that time*, when the people's sufferings were greatest and their prospects bleakest, that *Moses was born*, their God-appointed deliverer. `No ordinary child' is NIV's
rendering of an expression which combines the ideas of his being beautiful and pleasing to God (20). For the first *three months* of his life he was nurtured by his own mother, but was then brought up in the Egyptian palace as the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter (21). He was thus *educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians* and became *powerful in speech and action* (22).  At the age of forty, *he decided to visit his fellow Israelites*, in the sense of investigating their plight and seeking to remedy it (23). Witnessing two cases of injustice, he took things into his own hands. First, he tried to defend an Israelite, and killed the Egyptian who was ill-treating him (24).  The following day he tried to reconcile two Israelites who were fighting, and appealed to them to remember that they were brothers who on no account should hurt one another (26). In both cases he thought *his own people would realise* and acknowledge his God-given vocation *to rescue them* (25). *But they did not*.
Instead, the Israelite who was ill-treating the other challenged Moses' authority to be their *ruler and judge*, and enquired if intended to kill him as he had killed the Egyptian (27-28).  Alarmed that his act of murder was known, Moses *fled to Midian*, where he settled down *as a foreigner*, married and had *two sons*
(29). This was the beginning of his second forty-year period. 

At the end of it came the turning point in his career, when God met and commissioned him. True, it is said to have been *an angel* who *appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai* (30). Yet it was *the Lord's voice* which called him, and which announced that he was *the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob*, so that *Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look* (31-32). The divine voice then told him to remove his sandals because the place where he was standing, in the very presence of the living God, was *holy ground* (33). This statement was central to Stephen's thesis. There was holy ground outside the holy land. Wherever God is, is holy. Moreover, the same God who met Moses in the desert of Midian was also present in Egypt, for he had *seen* his people's *oppression* there, had *heard their groaning*, had actually *come down* in person *to set them free*, and was now sending Moses *back to Egypt* to effect
their liberation (34). *The same Moses*, whom the Israelites had rejected as their *ruler and judge*, was now appointed *their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush* (35).

Moses' third forty-year period was spent in the desert after he *led them out of Egypt*. Moreover, alike *in Egypt, at the Red Sea and ...in the desert* his unique ministry as their deliverer and lawgiver had been authenticated (like the equally unique ministry of the apostles) *by wonders and miraculous signs* (36).  *This is that Moses*, continued Stephen, wishing to magnify his ministry, who foretold the coming of the Messiah as a prophet like him (Dt.18:15), who was *in the assembly (ekklesia) in the desert*, along with the people and with *the angel who spoke to
him on Mount Sinai*, and who *received living words*, oracles from God, to pass on to the people (37-38). True (and here Stephen anticipates how his defence will end), this greatly privileged nation *refused to obey* God. They not only *in their hearts
turned back to Egypt*, but, rejecting Moses' leadership, commissioned Aaron to make them substitute gods to go before them into the promised land (39-40). They then *brought sacrifices* to the golden calf and *held a celebration in honour of what their hands had made* (41), which provoked God to turn away from them and to give them up instead to *the worship of the heavenly bodies* (42a).  Although Stephen backs up his accusation with the quotation from Amos 5 which dates from several centuries later, it nevertheless refers to the corrupt worship of Israel during their
forty years in the desert. Their *sacrifices and offerings* were not in reality brought to Yahweh, whatever their claim may have been, but rather to pagan idols (42b-43).

Stephen has traced the life and ministry of Moses through its Egyptian, Midianite and wilderness periods, and has shown that in each period and place God was with him. Chrysostom understood the import of this. Both when Moses was being educated in the Egyptian palace and when God appeared to him in the desert of Midian, there is `not a word of temple, not a word of sacrifice' (Chrysostom repeats this phrase). In fact the `holy ground' at the burning bush was `far more wonderful...than...the Holy of Holies', for God is nowhere said to have appeared in the inner sanctuary in
Jerusalem as he did in the burning bush. So the lesson to learn from the experience of Moses is that `God is everywhere present' and that `the Holy place is wherever God may be'.


Acts 7:44-50. Stephen's defence  (iv) David and Solomon.

It is in Stephen's fourth epoch (44-50), which includes the settlement of the promised land and the establishment of the monarchy, that a religious structure is mentioned for the first time, namely *the tabernacle of the testimony which* the people had *with them in the desert* (44).  In referring to the tabernacle and the temple, Stephen is derogatory to neither. On the contrary, they were associated with some of the greatest names of Israel history - Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon. Further, the tabernacle was constructed *as God directed Moses and according to the pattern he had seen* (44).  Then the *fathers under Joshua brought it with them* into the land they took from the nations they dispossessed (45a). For a long period it *remained in the land* as a focus of national life, even
*until the time of David* (45b), who *enjoyed God's favour* and asked permission to build God a more substantial and permanent *dwelling place* (47).  His request was refused, however, and it *was Solomon who built the house for him* (47). In this story of the transition from tabernacle to temple, Stephen is seen by some as showing a bias towards the former because it was mobile. But he expresses neither a preference for the tabernacle nor a distaste for the temple. For both were constructed in accordance with God's will. Does this not contradict Stephen's thesis, however? No, Stephen's point is not that it was wrong to construct either the
tabernacle or the temple, but that they should never have been regarded as in any literal sense God's home. For *the Most High does not live in houses made by men* (48). Paul was to make the same point to the Athenian philosophers (17:24). And, although this sentiment is not expressed in the Old Testament in so many words, Solomon himself understood it. After the temple had been built he prayed: `But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Ki.8:27; cf. 2Ch.6:18) Instead of quoting this, however, Stephen cites Isaiah 66:1-2 where God says: *Heaven
is my throne and the earth my footstool*. So *what kind of house or resting place* could be built for him? God is himself the Creator; how can the Maker of everything be confined within man-made structures? (49-50).

It is not difficult, then, to grasp Stephen's thesis. A single thread runs right through the first part of his defence. It is that the God of Israel is a pilgrim God, who is not restricted to any one place. Key assertions in his speech are that the God of glory appeared to Abraham while he was still in heathen Mesopotamia (2); that God was with Joseph even when he was a slave in Egypt (9); that God came to Moses in the desert of Midian, and thereby constituted the place `holy ground' (30,33); that,
although in the wilderness God had been `moving from place to place with a tent as [his ] dwelling' (2 Sam.7:6; cf. 1Ch.17:5), yet `the Most High God does not live in houses made by men' (48).  It is evident then from Scripture itself that God's presence cannot be localized, and that no building can confine him or inhibit his activity. If he has any home on earth, it is with his people that he lives. He has pledged himself by a solemn covenant to be their God. Therefore, according to his covenant promise, wherever they are, there is he also.

Next:  b). The law.