ACTS 6 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

The Choosing of the Seven

1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

OTES, "If the *Devil cannot cause problems from outside the church, he will cause problems among church members. In the time of Christ, there were many *Jews who lived all over the world. People called this the dispersion. People thought that it was very good to die in Jerusalem. Many of the *Jews of the dispersion came to Jerusalem when they were old. They wanted to die there. ow there were many people who belonged to the church. Some were *Jews who had grown up in *Judea or *Galilee. Many other *Jews from the dispersion also now lived in Jerusalem. There were many widows. These people had lived for all of their lives in other countries. They had different customs. We must not be surprised that there were problems among them. There were protests. The *Jews who spoke Greek said that some people did not pay attention to their widows. Every day they gave food to some people, but not to those widows. This is typical of many quarrels in the church since that time.

James 2:14-17 My friends, a man may say that he trusts God. But he does nothing good. That is no good. Trust like that cannot *save him. Suppose a brother or sister has no clothes and daily food. Perhaps one of you will say to him, ‘Go, I wish you well. Keep warm and eat well.’ If you do nothing to help that person, that is no good. In the same way, trust by itself, with no action, is of no use.

Here we see the reality of life, even for Christians. When there are more of them, there are more problems. People are problems because they have needs, and because even believers are basically self centered, the needs of others can be neglected. Increasing numbers means increasing needs and responsibilities, and usually it takes some time before people get upset enough to complain. It is good, however, that at some point someone does complain, for only when there is a complaint will there be a response to it that can lead to a solution. Complainers can actually benefit the church, for by their complaint they call attention to a need that has to be met, and this motivates caring people to come up with a plan to do something about the

complaint. There was already a system for taking care of the needs of widows, but it was slanted toward the locals and that was the problem.

It is understandable that the problem arose because the growth of the church was so great that it was bound to lead to neglect. The 120 disciples on Pentecost was multiplied to 3000 that very day, and then 5000 more were added shortly after. There was just a multitude of men and women coming into the church, and they were from different background within both Judaism and the Gentile world. The problem here was with Jews who were from a Grecian background. They were born and raised outside of Palestine, and came to Palestine for Pentecost where they became Christians. The Jews from a Hebrew background would feel superior to those with a Gentile upbringing, and so it was natural to serve their own kind first. The Jews who spoke Hebrew and lived in the land of Israel would feel more worthy of the best treatment. The Jews who lived in Gentile lands and spoke Greek would seem inferior and come in second place. The idea of equality of all believers was a new concept and took time to become a reality in practice. We all tend to be partial to those most like us in our language and culture, and that was what led to the first problem we have on record in the early church.

It also makes sense that the Grecian widows would be more likely to be neglected because the Hebrew Jews were used to having the poor receive daily provisions and so it was life as usual for them, but for the Greek speaking widows it was an addition to the usual, and, therefore, unusual. The Hebrew Jews would fit more into the traditions of the land, but the Grecian Jews would be outsiders coming into the program, and with less familiarity being they were not native to the land or the program. Maimonides, the ancient Jewish scholar wrote this about the common practice of the Jews. "They appoint collectors, who receive "every day," from every court, a piece of bread, or any sort of food, or fruit, or money, from whomsoever that offers freely for the time; and they divide that which is collected, "in the evening," among the poor, and they give to every poor person of it "his daily sustenance"; and this is called ywxmt, "Tamchui," or 'the alms dish.'” Barclay makes this strong statement: “o nation has ever had a greater sense of responsibility for the less fortunate brethren than the Jews.”The Christians would just naturally keep on with what was a compassionate program to care for the needs of the poor.

The point is, it was not out of malice toward outsiders that they were neglected, but the natural result of so many outsiders coming into the church that was at first almost entirely Jews from the area. These Jews had property to sell to aid the poor, but those from other lands would be without anything to fall back on, and so there would be more resources available for the local people. The problem was one that was perfectly natural under the circumstances, and the main thing is that it was a problem that was taken care of and not put on the back burner. It is possible to make the Hebrew Jews guilty of partiality and the Hellenist Jews guilty of being complainers, but it is reading too much into the text. It is better to see the whole situation as a natural working out of the problem of rapid growth in the church.

WIDOWS I THE BIBLE

God takes the care of widows very seriously, and gives stern warning to those who are tempted to take advantage of their weakness. Here is what he says in Exodus 22:“Ex. 22:21 And you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22 You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. 23 If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; 24 and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” In other words, treat them badly and you will end up as them, for God will treat badly those who treat them badly. Mal. 3:5 shows that those who mistreat the widow are among the worst of sinners.“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien, and do not fear Me, says the Lord of hosts.”

We need to keep in mind that the widow of Bible times was far more vulnerable than those who live today. Without a mate they were at the mercy of those who would take advantage of them. They had to rely on others for survival. Today we have insurance and inheritance that makes many a widow comparatively wealthy and self-sufficient. In Bible times they were among the poorest and least self-sufficient. evertheless, God takes very seriously the loss that a widow has suffered in losing a mate and being on her own. It is not natural for her to be alone, and so she has a special place in God’s compassion. There are no similar laws and concerns for the widower in the Bible, and this makes it clear that women experience a much greater hardship in being left without a mate.

Success in Church growth brings problems and so successful ministry is constantly dealing with problem solving.

Give us this day our daily bread made more sense in that day when food distribution was a day by day matter. What is fair for all is an obligation of the church to achieve. We see here the value of just protest for it calls attention to a problem. Suffering in silence is only a virtue to a point. The first problem in the church was not theological but social, and this has been a problem ever since in striving to treat all people fairly. Organization developed out of problem solving.

Here was a church run by the Apostles and they still had complaints, so what can you expect in any other church. Many get neglected not for lack of caring but for lack of organization. There are two few people involved in meeting the need.

The transition to the Gentile world began with Jews living in the Gentile world.

Matthias is called one of the 12 and so there is no issue of Paul being one of the 12.

Even the Apostles could not do everything well. The personal Gospel and the social Gospel are equally vital ministeries, but no one can do both well. It would be folly for the Apostles to complain against the deacons for not preaching and teaching, but just delivering groceries. There are multiple purposes of the church in the world.

BARES, "In those days ... - The first part of this chapter contains an account of the appointment of “deacons.” It may be asked, perhaps, why the apostles did not appoint these officers at the first organization of the church? To this, question we may reply, that it was better to defer the appointment until an occasion should occur when it would appear to be manifestly necessary and proper. When the church was small, its alms could be distributed by the apostles themselves without difficulty But when it was greatly increased when its charities were multiplied; and when the distribution might give rise to contentions, it was necessary that this matter should be entrusted to the hands of “laymen,” and that the “ministry” should be freed from all embarrassment, and all suspicions of dishonesty and unfairness in regard to pecuniary matters. It has never been found to be wise that the temporal affairs of the church should be entrusted in any considerable degree to the clergy, and they should be freed from such sources of difficulty and embarrassment.

Was multiplied - By the accession of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, and of those who were subsequently added, Act_4:4; Act_5:14.

A murmuring - A complaint - as if there had been partiality in the distribution.

Of the Grecians - There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to these persons, whether they were “Jews” who had lived among the Gentiles, and who spoke the Greek language, or whether they were proselytes from the Gentiles. The former is probably the correct opinion. The word used here is not what is commonly employed to designate the inhabitants of Greece, but it properly denotes those who “imitate” the customs and habits of the Greeks, who use the Greek language, etc. In the time when the gospel was first preached, there were two classes of Jews - those who remained in Palestine, who used the Hebrew language, and who were appropriately called “Hebrews”; and those who were scattered among the Gentiles, who spoke the Greek language, and who used in their synagogues the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. These were called “Hellenists,” or, as it is in our translation, “Grecians.” See the notes on Joh_7:35. These were doubtless the persons mentioned here - not those who were proselyted from Gentiles, but those of Jewish origin who were not natives of Judea, who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the great festivals. See Act_2:5, Act_2:9-11. Dissensions would be very likely to arise between these two classes of persons. The Jews of Palestine would pride themselves much on the fact that they dwelt in the land of the patriarchs and the land of promise; that they used the language which their fathers spoke, and in which the oracles of God were given; and that they were constantly near the temple, and regularly engaged in its solemnities. On the other hand, the Jews from other parts of the world would be suspicious, jealous, and envious of their brethren, and would be likely to charge them with partiality, or of taking advantage in their contact with them. These occasions of strife would not be destroyed by their conversion to Christianity, and one of them is furnished on this occasion.

Because their widows ... - The property which had been contributed, or thrown into common stock, was understood to be designed for the equal benefit of “all” the

poor, and particularly, it would seem, for the poor widows. The distribution before this seems to have been made by the apostles themselves - or possibly, as Mosheim conjectures (Commentary de rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, pp. 139, 118), the apostles committed the distribution of these funds to the Hebrews, and hence, the Grecians are represented as complaining against them, and not against the apostles.

In the daily ministration - In the daily distribution which was made for their needs. Compare Act_4:35. The property was contributed doubtless with an understanding that it should be “equally” distributed to all classes of Christians that had need. It is clear from the Epistles that “widows” were objects of special attention in the primitive church, and that the first Christians regarded it as a matter of indispensable obligation to provide for their needs, 1Ti_5:3, 1Ti_5:9-10, 1Ti_5:16; Jam_1:27.

CLARKE, "A murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews - Those who

are here termed Grecians, Ηλληνισται, or Hellenists, were Jews who sojourned now at Jerusalem, but lived in countries where the Greek language was spoken, and probably in general knew no other. They are distinguished here from those called Hebrews, by which we are to understand native Jews, who spoke what was then termed the Hebrew language, a sort of Chaldaio-Syriac.

It has been remarked that Greek words ending in ιστης imply inferiority. λληνες,

Hellenes, was distinguished from λληνισται: the former implies pure Greeks, native Greeks, who spoke the Greek tongue in its purity; and the latter, Jews or others sojourning among the Greeks, but who spoke the Greek language according to the Hebrew idiom. Pythagoras divided his disciples into two classes; those who were capable

of entering into the spirit and mystery of his doctrine he called Πυθαγορειοι,

Pythagoreans; those who were of a different cast he termed Πυθαγορισται, Pythagorists: the former were eminent and worthy of their master; the latter only so so. The same

distinction is made between those called Αττικοι and Αττικισται, Attics and Atticists, the

pure and less pure Greeks, as between those called λληνες and λληνισται, Hellenes and Hellenists, pure Greeks and Graecising Jews. See Jamblicus, De Vit. Pyth. cap. 18, and Schoettgen on this place.

The cause of the murmuring mentioned here seems to have been this: When all the disciples had put their property into a common stock, it was intended that out of it each should have his quantum of supply. The foreign or Hellenistic Jews began to be jealous, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, that they either had not the proportion, or were not duly served; the Palestine Jews being partial to those of their own country. This shows that the community of goods could never have been designed to become general. Indeed, it was no ordinance of God; and, in any state of society, must be in general impracticable. The apostles, hearing of this murmuring, came to the resolution mentioned below.

GILL, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied,.... From an hundred and twenty to three thousand more, from thence to five thousand more, and after that a multitude of men and women were added, and still they were increasing; see Act_1:15 Act_2:41. This increase of the disciples agrees with what Maimonides says (z), before observed, that

"in the days of Gamaliel, רבו�מינים, "the heretics were multiplied in Israel".''

The word "disciples" was a common name to all Christians, to all that believed in Christ, and was the name they went by, before they were called Christians, Act_11:26

there arose a murmuring of the Grecians, or Hellenists, against the Hebrews; by the Hebrews are meant the Jews that dwelt in Judea, and were the inhabitants of that country, and chiefly of Jerusalem, who spoke the Hebrew, or rather the Syriac language; and by the Grecians, or Hellenists, are meant, not the Greeks that were proselyted to the Jewish religion, though there might be some few among them; but Jews who were born, and had dwelt, in some parts of Greece, and spoke the Greek language, and used the Septuagint version of the Bible; between these two a murmuring arose, a complaint was made by one against the other: so that, as it appears from the instance of Ananias and Sapphira, that this first and pure Gospel church was not free from hypocrites; it is also manifest, that though they were at first so united and harmonious in their affections and judgments, yet they were not always clear of feuds, animosities, and contentions; Satan bestirred himself, and got footing among them, as he commonly does where the Gospel is preached, and there is an increase of it: the reason of this uneasiness was,

because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration; that is, they had not that distributed which was necessary for them, nor so much as the Hebrew widows; they complained of partiality, as if because the Hebrew widows were the natives of the country, and might be nearly related to many of the community, that therefore they were more regarded and better supplied every day, than their widows were, whose husbands had dwelt in foreign lands, and were not so well known, and had fewer acquaintance and relations; for it seems the ministration or distribution was made every day: and such a practice obtained among the Jews in common, who used to collect every day for the poor, and give it daily to them. Maimonides (a) speaks of it in this manner;

"they appoint collectors, who receive "every day", from every court, a piece of bread, or any sort of food, or fruit, or money, from whomsoever that offers freely for the time; and they divide that which is collected, "in the evening", among the poor, and they give to

every poor person of it "his daily sustenance"; and this is called תמחוי, "Tamchui", or "the alms dish".''

And from hence the apostles might take up this custom, and follow it. The Ethiopic version renders it, "because they saw their widows minister", or "employed daily"; as if the complaint was, that their widows were too much made use of, and obliged to more frequent and to harder service in taking care of the poor, the sick, and helpless, than the other widows were, who had not their share of labour with them, but lived more at ease. Though others rather think the murmur was, because the Grecian widows were not taken into the number, and employed in taking care of the poor, as the Hebrew widows were; but the sense first given, of not having so good a share in the distribution, seems to be the best.

HERY, "Having seen the church's struggles with her enemies, and triumphed with her in her victories, we now come to take a view of the administration of her affairs at

home; and here we have,

I. An unhappy disagreement among some of the church-members, which might have been of ill consequence, but was prudently accommodated and taken up in time (Act_6:1): When the number of the disciples (for so Christians were at first called, learners of Christ) was multiplied to many thousands in Jerusalem, there arose a murmuring.

1. It does our hearts good to find that the number of the disciples is multiplied, as, no doubt, it vexed the priests and Sadducees to the heart to see it. The opposition that the preaching of the gospel met with, instead of checking its progress, contributed to the success of it; and this infant Christian church, like the infant Jewish church in Egypt, the more it was afflicted, the more it multiplied. The preachers were beaten, threatened, and abused, and yet the people received their doctrine, invited, no doubt, thereto by their wonderful patience and cheerfulness under their trials, which convinced men that they were borne up and carried on by a better spirit than their own.

2. Yet it casts a damp upon us to find that the multiplying of the disciples proves an occasion of discord. Hitherto they were all with one accord. This had been often taken notice of to their honour; but now that they were multiplied, they began to murmur; as in the old world, when men began to multiply, they corrupted themselves. Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased their joy, Isa_9:3. When Abraham and Lot increased their families, there was a strife between their herdsmen; so it was here: There arose a murmuring, not an open falling out, but a secret heart-burning.

(1.) The complainants were the Grecians, or Hellenists, against the Hebrews - the Jews that were scattered in Greece, and other parts, who ordinarily spoke the Greek tongue, and read the Old Testament in the Greek version, and not the original Hebrew, many of whom being at Jerusalem at the feast embraced the faith of Christ, and were added to the church, and so continued there. These complained against the Hebrews, the native Jews, that used the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. Some of each of these became Christians, and, it seems, their joint-embracing of the faith of Christ did not prevail, as it ought to have done, to extinguish the little jealousies they had one of another before their conversion, but they retained somewhat of that old leaven; not understanding, or not remembering, that in Christ Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew,no distinction of Hebrew and Hellenist, but all are alike welcome to Christ, and should be, for his sake, dear to one another.

(2.) The complaint of these Grecians was that their widows were neglected in the daily administration, that is in the distribution of the public charity, and the Hebrew widows had more care taken of them. Observe, The first contention in the Christian church was about a money-matter; but it is a pity that the little things of this worldshould be makebates among those that profess to be taken up with the great things of another world. A great deal of money was gathered for the relief of the poor, but, as often happens in such cases, it was impossible to please every body in the laying of it out. The apostles, at whose feet it was laid, did their best to dispose of it so as to answer the intentions of the donors, and no doubt designed to do it with the utmost impartiality, and were far from respecting the Hebrews more than the Grecians; and yet here they are complained to, and tacitly complained of, that the Grecian widows were neglected;though they were as real objects of charity, yet they had not so much allowed them, or not to so many, or not so duly paid them, as the Hebrews. Now, [1.] Perhaps this complaint was groundless and unjust, and there was no cause for it; but those who, upon any account, lie under disadvantages (as the Grecian Jews did, in comparison with those that were Hebrews of the Hebrews) are apt to be jealous that they are slighted when really they are not so; and it is the common fault of poor people that, instead of being thankful for what is given them, they are querulous and clamorous, and apt to find fault

that more is not given them, or that more is given to others than to them; and there are envy and covetousness, those roots of bitterness, to be found among the poor as well as among the rich, notwithstanding the humbling providences they are under, and should accommodate themselves to. But, [2.] We will suppose there might be some occasion for their complaint. First, Some suggest that though their other poor were well provided for, yet their widows were neglected, because the managers governed themselves by an ancient rule which the Hebrews observed, that a widow was to be maintained by her husband's children. See 1Ti_5:4. But, Secondly, I take it that the widows are here put for all the poor, because many of those that were in the church-book, and received alms, were widows, who were well provided for by the industry of their husbands while they lived, but were reduced to straits when they were gone. As those that have the administration of public justice ought in a particular manner to protect widows from injury (Isa_1:17; Luk_18:3); so those that have the administration of public charity ought in a particular manner to provide for widows what is necessary. See 1Ti_5:3. And observe, The widows here, and the other poor, had a daily ministration; perhaps they wanted forecast, and could not save for hereafter, and therefore the managers of the fund, in kindness to them, gave them day by day their daily bread; they lived from hand to mouth. Now, it seems, the Grecian widows were, comparatively, neglected. Perhaps those that disposed of the money considered that there was more brought into the fund by the rich Hebrews than by the rich Grecians, who had not estates to sell, as the Hebrews had, and therefore the poor Grecians should have less out of the fund; this, though there was some tolerant reason for it, they thought hard and unfair. Note, In the best-ordered church in the world there will be something amiss, some mal -administration or other, some grievances, or at least some complaints; those are the best that have the least and the fewest.

II. The happy accommodating of this matter, and the expedient pitched upon for the taking away of the cause of this murmuring. The apostles had hitherto the directing of the matter. Applications were made to them, and appeals in cases of grievances. They were obliged to employ persons under them, who did not take all the care they might have taken, nor were so well fortified as they should have been against temptations to partiality; and therefore some persons must be chosen to manage this matter who have more leisure to attend to it than the apostles had, and were better qualified for the trust than those whom the apostles employed were. Now observe,

1. How the method was proposed by the apostles: They called the multitude of the disciples unto them, the heads of the congregations of Christians in Jerusalem, the principal leading men. The twelve themselves would not determine any thing without them, for in multitude of counsellors there is safety; and in an affair of this nature those might be best able to advise who were more conversant in the affairs of this life than the apostles were.

JAMISO, "Act_6:1-7. First election of deacons.

the Grecians— the Greek-speaking Jews, mostly born in the provinces.

the Hebrews— those Jews born in Palestine who used their native tongue, and were wont to look down on the “Grecians” as an inferior class.

were neglected— “overlooked” by those whom the apostles employed, and who were probably of the Hebrew class, as being the most numerous. The complaint was in all likelihood well founded, though we cannot suspect the distributors of intentional partiality. “It was really just an emulation of love, each party wishing to have their own poor taken care of in the best manner” [Olshausen].

the daily ministration— the daily distribution of alms or of food, probably the latter.

CALVI, "1.Luke declareth here upon what occasion, and to what end, and also with what rite, deacons were first made. He saith, When there arose a murmuring amongst the disciples, it was appeased by this remedy, as it is said in the common proverb, Good laws have taken their beginning of evil manners. And it may seem to be a strange thing, seeing that this is a function so excellent and so necessary in the Church, why it came not into the apostles’ minds at the first, (before there was any such occasion ministered,) to appoint deacons, and why the Spirit of God did not give them such counsel which they take now, being, as it were, enforced thereunto. But that which happened was both better then, and is also more profitable for us at this day, to be unto us an example. If the apostles had spoken of choosing deacons before any necessity did require the same, they should not have had the people so ready; they should have seemed to avoid labor and trouble; many would not have offered so liberally into the hands of other men. Therefore, it was requisite that the faithful should be convict [convinced] by experience that they might choose deacons willingly, whom they saw they could not want; and that through their own fault.

We learn in this history that the Church cannot be so framed by and by, but that there remain somewhat to be amended; neither can so great a building be so finished in one day, that there may not something be added to make the same perfect. Furthermore, we learn that there is no ordinance of God so holy and laudable, which is not either corrupt or made unprofitable through the fault of men. We wonder that things are never so well ordered in the world, but that there is always some evil mixed with the good; but it is the wickedness and corruption of our nature which causeth this. That was, indeed, a godly order, whereof Luke made mention before, when the goods of all men being consecrated to God, were distributed to every man as he had need; (306) when as the apostles, being, as it were, the stewards of God and the poor, had the chief government of the alms. But shortly after there ariseth a murmuring which troubleth this order. Here appeareth that corruption of men whereof I have spoken, which doth not suffer us to use our good things. We must also mark the subtilty (307) of Satan, who, to the end he may take from us the use of the gifts of God, goeth about this continually, that it may not remain pure and sound; but that, being mixed with other discommodities, it may, first, be suspected, secondly, loathed, and, lastly, quite taken away. But the apostles have taught us, by their example, that we must not yield unto such engines (and policies) of Satan. For they do not think it meet (being offended with the murmuring) to take away that ministry which they know pleaseth God; but rather invent a remedy whereby the offense may be taken away, and that may be retained which is God’s. Thus must we do. For what offenses soever Satan raise, (308) we must take good heed that he take not from us those ordinances which are otherwise wholesome.

The number increasing. We ought to wish for nothing more than that God would increase his Church, and gather together many (309) on every side unto his people;

but the corruption of our nature hindereth us from having any thing happy in all points. For there arise many discommodities also, even of the increasings of the Church. For it is a hard matter to keep many hypocrites from creeping into the multitude, whose wickedness is not by and by discovered, until such time as they have infected some part of the flock with their infection. Moreover, many wicked, froward, and dissolute persons do insinuate themselves under a false color of repentance. And that I may pass over innumerable things, there is never such agreement amongst many, but that, according to the diversity of their manners, their opinions are also diverse, so that one thing cannot please all alike. This offense causeth many to be desirous to choose a few for a Church; it causeth them to loathe or else to hate a multitude. But no trouble, no irksomeness, ought so much to prevail, but that we must always be desirous to have the Church increased; but that we must study to enlarge the same; but that we must cherish so much as in us lieth unity with the whole body.

A murmuring of the Greeks. Hereby it appeareth that they were not fully regenerate by the Spirit of God, to whom the diversity of nation and country ministereth occasion of disagreement. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Grecian, (Galatians 3:28.) Therefore, this indignation smelleth (310) of the flesh and the world. Wherefore we must take good heed that the like fault be not found in us. (311) There is another fault in that they declare their indignation by murmuring. Furthermore it is uncertain whether the complaint were true or no. For when Luke saith that the Greeks murmured, because their widows were not honored, he showeth not what was done in deed, but what they thought was done. And it may be that forasmuch as the apostles did prefer the Jews, (312) because they were better known, the Greeks did think (though falsely) that their widows were despised as strangers. And this seemeth to be more like to be true. Furthermore the word ministering may be expounded two manner of ways, actively or passively. For we know that at the first there were widows chosen unto the ministration. (313) otwithstanding, I do rather think that the Greeks did complain, because their widows were not so liberally relieved as they wished. So that the ministration shall be that daily distribution which was wont to be made.

BESO, ". In those days — Some time after the fact last recorded had taken place; when the number of the disciples was multiplied — For it appears their number increased continually and rapidly, notwithstanding the opposition made by the priests and rulers to the preaching of the gospel: indeed that opposition, instead of checking the progress of Christianity, contributed to it: there arose a murmuring — The historian’s manner of speaking, πληθυνοντων των µαθητων εγενετο γογγυσµος, the disciples multiplying, there arose a murmuring, seems to imply, that the murmuring was partly, at least, the consequence of the great increase of the disciples. And certainly, 1st, In proportion as the number of Christians increased, the scandal of the cross would be diminished, and many would be inclined to unite themselves to them, who were influenced by motives not perfectly pure, and were not truly converted to God, and made new creatures in Christ. 2d, The accession of a great number of converts to the church, perhaps chiefly from the poor, would render it more difficult than it was before, to afford all the necessitous a proper

supply. But, whatever was the cause of the murmuring here spoken of, it was the first breach made on those who were before of one heart and of one soul. Partiality crept in unawares on some, and murmuring on others. Ah, Lord! how short a time did pure, genuine, undefiled Christianity remain in the world! How soon was its glory, at least in some measure, eclipsed! Of the Grecians — Greek, of the Hellenists, that is, the Jews born out of Judea, so called, because they used the Greek as their native language. These were descendants of such Jews as, in several national calamities, had been forced to flee to Alexandria, and other Gentile countries, or, on account of trade and commerce, had chosen to settle there, and yet kept themselves unmixed with the Gentiles; and, retaining the knowledge of the true God, were wont to come occasionally, especially on the solemn feasts, to worship at Jerusalem. Against the Hebrews — Who were natives of Judea, and therefore used a dialect of the Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic tongue; because their widows were neglected — In some degree, as they supposed; in the daily ministration — Of the charities that were distributed to the poor members of the church. It is justly observed here by Mr. Scott, that “as the greatest part of the public stock must have been contributed by the Hebrews, perhaps they, who acted under the apostles in this business, thought it right to show more favour to the poor widows of that description than the others.” It is very probable, however, that the Hellenists suspected more partiality than there really was. Be this as it may, by this real or supposed partiality of the Hebrews, and the murmuring of the Hellenists, there is reason to think the Spirit of God was grieved, and the seeds of a general persecution were sown. For, did God ever, in any age or country, withdraw his restraining providence, and let loose the world upon the Christians, till there was a cause for it among themselves? Is not an open, general persecution, always both penal and medicinal? a punishment of those that will not accept of milder reproofs as well as a medicine to heal their sickness? and at the same time a means of purifying and strengthening those whose hearts are still right with God?

BARCLAY, "THE FIRST OFFICE-BEARERS (Acts 6:1-7)

As the Church grew it began to encounter the problems of an institution. o nation has ever had a greater sense of responsibility for the less fortunate brethren than the Jews.

In the synagogue there was a routine custom. Two collectors went round the market and the private houses every Friday morning and made a collection for the needy partly in money and partly in goods. Later in the day this was distributed. Those who were temporarily in need received enough to enable them to carry on; and those who were permanently unable to support themselves received enough for fourteen meals, that is, enough for two meals a day for the ensuing week. The fund from which this distribution was made was called the Kuppah or Basket. In addition to this a house-to-house collection was made daily for those in pressing need. This was called the Tamhui, or Tray.

It is clear that the Christian Church had taken over this custom. But amidst the Jews themselves there was a cleavage. In the Christian Church there were two kinds

of Jews. There were the Jerusalem and the Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic, the descendant of the ancestral language, and prided themselves that there was no foreign admixture in their lives. There were also Jews from foreign countries who had come up for Pentecost and made the great discovery of Christ. Many of these had been away from Palestine for generations; they had forgotten their Hebrew and spoke only Greek. The natural consequence was that the spiritually snobbish Aramaic-speaking Jews looked down on the foreign Jews. This contempt affected the daily distribution of alms and there was a complaint that the widows of the Greek-speaking Jews were being--possibly deliberately--neglected. The apostles felt they ought not to get themselves mixed up in a matter like this; so the Seven were chosen to straighten out the situation.

It is extremely interesting to note that the first office-bearers to be appointed were chosen not to talk but for practical service.

COFFMA, "This very short chapter narrates the preliminaries of Stephen's martyrdom, noting that it occurred following a period of great growth and prosperity for the new faith (Acts 6:1), that Stephen's rise to prominence was a result of his appointment as one of the seven chosen to administer the distribution of food to the needy, an appointment brought about by complaints of neglecting the Grecian widows (Acts 6:2-7), and that his popularity, ability in debate, and fearless proclamation of the truth resulted in a Pharisaical plot against him, leading to his arrest (Acts 6:8-15). Many things of very great significance come to view in this little chapter: there was the first instance of the laying on of the hands of the apostles; there appeared the first violent opposition of the Pharisees; there occurred the first expansion of the church's organization beyond that of the governing apostles; there was a second threat to the unity of the disciples, deriving from the allegations of neglect of a certain class receiving charity; and there was the exceedingly significant record of "a great company of the priests" accepting the faith in Jesus Christ.

ow in these days when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1)

In these days ... indicates a considerable time-lapse after the establishment of the church in A.D. 30, probably a period of six or eight years.

Murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews ... Both classes of these "Jews" were Christians, but there was a language barrier. The Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic, and those of the Diaspora spoke Greek; many of the latter were living in Jerusalem at that time but were natives of the provinces. "In the Jewish world as a whole there was some tension, and this survived between the two groups,"[1] even after they became Christians.

Murmuring ... Most scholars assume that there was justification for this action, basing their opinion upon the assumption that the Grecian widows were actually "neglected." However, it is not clear from this verse that Luke intended any

admission to that effect; but neither is it denied. It is this word "murmuring" which casts some doubt on the extent of that "neglect," for "murmuring" almost invariably carries with it an imputation of guilt in the persons doing the murmuring; and it rarely implies any guilt in those murmured against. "How long shall I bear with this evil generation which murmur against me?" (umbers 14:27). As Spurgeon said of the murmuring of Israel in the wilderness:

The tendency of human nature is to murmur, complain, find fault, a very easy thing to do, the very word "murmur" being made of two infantile sounds - MUR MUR! There is no sense in it, no wit in it, no thought in it, being the cry rather of a brute than of a man, just a double groan![2]The vice of murmuring is specifically condemned in Philippians 2:14,1 Corinthians 10:10; and this student of God's word refuses to see in the incident before us any justification whatever for the murmuring that took place regarding the daily distribution of food to the needy. In the very nature of such distributions, it was inevitable that some should receive less, others more, and that almost any person desiring to find fault could easily have "discovered" some basis for alleging it. Significantly, the apostles spoke not a word of blame regarding either those who murmured or those who had done the distributing. They simply changed the administration of the charities with a view to eliminating all further excuses for any murmuring.

Their Widows ... As McGarvey noted:

The fact that this distribution was made daily, and that the widows were the principal recipients, confirms our former conclusion that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy.[3]Elam made a deduction based upon this episode, as follows:

There may be only two classes in the church, namely, the givers and the receivers. Each one belongs to one of these classes. If one is unable to give, that one is in the class of receivers and needs to be given to.[4][1] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 128.

[2] Charles H. Spurgeon, Sermons (ew York: Funk and Wagnalls Company), Vol. IX, p. 389.

[3] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 103.

[4] E. A. Elam, Elam's otes on Bible School Lessons (ashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1931), p. 191.

COKE, ". There arose a murmuring of the Grecians, &c.— Or, the Hellenists. There is not all the light which some have wished for concerning the distinction of the Jews into Hebrews and Hellenists; but the following appears the most probable

account. The Jews who inhabited Judea, and those of the eastern dispersions, generally retained the Syro-Chaldaic, which in the ew Testament is called the Hebrew language; but those of the western dispersions generally made use of the Greek, the language which then prevailed very generally. The former were called Hebrews, and the latter Hellenists, or Graecising Jews; and of this sort were most of the Roman, Grecian, and Egyptian Jews, as well as the "Proselytes of righteousness" of the western dispersions. After the time of Ezra, the scriptures, of the Old Testament were read to the Jews in their synagogues in their original Hebrew, and interpreted in Chaldee, because the common people had forgotten the original Hebrew by living so long in Chaldea. But the Jews who were planted at Alexandria in Egypt, seemed generally in process of time to have forgot both the Hebrew and the Chaldee; and by conversing so much in a Grecian city, to have fallen into the use of the Greek language. Hence a translation of the scriptures for the use of the common people became necessary; and part of the version which goes under the name of the Septuagint, was made by some of the learned men among the Jews there; and is thought to have been first made use of in that city instead of the Chaldee interpretation: for we are to observe, that the Jews did not any where, at that time, publicly read the scriptures in any other language than the Hebrew. Hence then it is probable, that these Jews were called Hellenists, because of their using the Hellenistick, or Greek language; and by that name theycame to be distinguished from the Hebrew Jews, who used only the Hebrew tongue. These different customs are said to have made a sort of schism between them; inallusion to which, St. Paul seems to have mentioned it among the Jews, that he was an Hebrew of the Hebrews, (see Philippians 3:5.) that is, a descendant of that sort of Jews who were most highly esteemed upon the account of their using the Hebrew language, 2 Corinthians 11:22. The Syriac version has rendered ' Ελληνιστων, by the Jews who understood, or spoke Greek. That these Hellenists were not all of them proselytes of righteousness, as some aver, seems indisputable from St. Luke's observation, Acts 6:5 that icolas was a proselyte of Antioch. It may possibly be hence inferred, that some of the Hellenists were proselytes of righteousness. But as he alone, of all the seven deacons, is said to have been a proselyte, it is very unlikely that all the Hellenists were such; for it is highly probable that others of the seven deacons were Hellenists, as well as icolas; whereas, by saying that icolas was a proselyte, St. Luke seems to have intimated that all the other six deacons were Jews by birth, as well as religion, though some of them might be Hellenists, and others Hebrews.

While Satan's kingdom fell before the preaching of the gospel like lightning from heaven, and the number of the Christians increased exceedingly, the Hellenists, or Graecising Jewish Christians, complained of the Hebrew Christians; because, in the daily distribution of the charity; their widows, who were poor or sick, or burdened with the care of children, were either wholly neglected, or at least not made equal with the widows of the Hebrews. It is highly probable, that they esteemed the widows of the Graecists, agreeably to their prejudices, less worthy and honourable; and perhaps no land had been sold out of Palestine to raise or support the fund, but what Barnabas had sold in the island of Cyprus; and therefore they might think that the Hellenists had not an equal claim, as the Hebrews had been the chief contributors. The apostles, undoubtedly, acted a very faithful part in the

distribution of money raised by the sale of lands. But they could not do all things. Perhaps they intrusted some who had been proprietors of the estates sold, who would naturally have some peculiar regard to the necessity of their neighbours, as being best acquainted with them. And if any suspicions arose, as to the sincerity of their character, and the reasonableness of their pretensions, these strangers would naturally be least capable of giving satisfaction.

ELLICOTT, "(1) And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied.—Better, were being multiplied, as by an almost daily increase. The length of the interval between this and the previous chapter is left uncertain. The death of Stephen is fixed by most writers in A.D. 38.

The Grecians.—The English version always carefully uses this word, and not Greeks, for the Hellenistæ or Greek-speaking Jews. These were known also as “the dispersion among the Gentiles” (John 7:35), or generally as “the dispersion,” the “sojourners of the dispersion,” those that were “scattered abroad” (James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1). Many of the converts of the Day of Pentecost must have belonged to this body; so, probably, did Barnabas and the others named in the ote on Acts 4:37. ow they were becoming a prominent section of the Church, perhaps more numerous than the Hebrews, or Jews of Palestine. They, as their name implies, spoke Greek habitually, and as a rule did not read the older Hebrew or speak the current Aramaic. They read the Septuagint (LXX.) version of the Old Testament. They were commonly more zealous, with the zeal of pilgrims, for the sanctity of the holy places than the Jews of Jerusalem itself, who had been familiar with them from infancy (Acts 21:27).

Because their widows were neglected.—The words imply something like an organised administration of the common fund: widows and their children being the chief objects of relief. The rules of 1 Timothy 5:3-16, were probably the growth of a more mature experience; and here we have to think of a clamorous crowd of applicants besieging the house at which the Apostles held their meeting at the times appointed for giving relief in money, or, as seems more probable, in kind. The Twelve—singly, or in groups—sat at the table, and gave as they were able. It was like the dole of alms at the gate of a convent. Under such circumstances, jealousies and complaints were all but in- evitable. The Twelve were all of them Galileans, and were suspected of favouring the widows of Palestine rather than those of the Dispersion. It was the first sign that the new society was outgrowing its primitive organisation.

PETT, "‘ow in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian (Hellenistic) Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.’

That the administration of the funds and charitable giving now being made available to the Apostles was not carried out with efficiency and precision is not surprising. They had not been trained for it, and it was really outside their sphere. They were quite rightly keeping their emphasis on their main ministry. The neglect

of the widows of the Hellenistic Jews thus probably arose, not from inherent racism, but from inefficiency. The Aramaic speaking Jewish Christians were naturally more in touch with the Aramaic speaking widows, than they were with the solely Greek speaking widows, and appear therefore not have been aware of the needs of some of the latter. aturally the Hellenists themselves (not their widows) felt a little upset about it so that the matter was eventually brought up with the Apostles. This was something that needed sorting out. It was all a part of the openness with which they treated each other.

This division between predominantly Aramaic speaking Jews and predominantly Greek speaking Jews was marked everywhere in Judaism and no more so than in Jerusalem. The Hellenists (Greek speaking Jews) tended to be more affected by Greek culture and to use the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) rather than the Hebrew Scriptures, and thus to be broader in their views and outlook. They had a tendency to interpret things differently from the more orthodox, tending to be freer spoken in religious matters and interpretation. aturally therefore, without actually splitting off, they tended to band together both doctrinally and practically. They felt more at home with each other. In Jerusalem there would be a number of synagogues which were regarded as Hellenistic.

And it would appear that this difference had necessarily crossed over into the church. The Apostles would therefore naturally be much more alive to what was happening among the Aramaic speaking section of ‘the church’, for the church, while united, would meet in smaller groups, and this would explain the accidental discrimination. It was probably mainly due to lack of administrative ability and awareness rather than to conscious neglect, and possibly also connected with the district they lived in.

Although none of them were aware of it God was about to use this difference to set things off in a new direction, both in an expansion of the ministry to less orthodox circles, and in a change in the emphasis of the church’s teaching, both directly as a result of the activity of the Holy Spirit.

‘Murmuring.’ There was an expression of dissatisfaction. This would probably come from concerned Hellenistic Christians who saw how some of their widows were missing out and went and grumbled to their own ‘elders’. These elders would then approach the Apostles.

WHEDO, "VI. PETECOSTAL CHURCH FORMIG ITS ECOOMY.

Choice of the Seven, 1-8.

1. In those days—A Hebrew phrase used in Acts 1:15, to mark a period of a few days, and in Matthew 3:1, to imply an indefinite number of years. As thus far Luke has given but few dates, the reader may suppose that we are advanced but a few months from the Ascension. But according to the best chronology the events of this chapter take place in the year thirty-six. (See note on Acts 9:24.) Assuming the

crucifixion to have occurred in the year 30, we must either overleap a few years, or, more properly, distribute the events thus far as we best can over a period of six years. During this period the management of the affairs of the Church, as limited to Jerusalem alone, rests upon the apostles. Yet the real power lies in the body of the Church. The apostles, though divinely appointed, are the personal representatives and executives of that power.

Their authority is undefined by any exact limits. With them as its heads, the whole body moves with spontaneous harmony and freedom. The hierarchy in form is a democracy in spirit.

Meanwhile they are now beginning to find that, like Moses, (Exodus 18:13-26,) their task is too large for their hands. The instrumentalities they are obliged to use, especially in the charitable distributions, are too irresponsible, and negligences and partialities give rise to murmurs. Baumgarten entitles this section “The first dissension,” but he might as well define it the first official deficiency; for that the administration was defective is proved by the prompt thoroughness with which the radical correction was made.

A murmuring—The Greek word γογγυσµος is an imitative word expressing a low buzz of discontent gradually reaching the apostolic ears.

Grecians… Hebrews—Three classes of persons are to be carefully distinguished in this earliest Christian history—the Hebrews, the Proselytes, and the Grecians or Hellenists. The FIRST were claimants of the real Hebrew blood, more or less pure, speaking mainly the vernacular Hebrew of the day, (the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic,) inclined to reside in or connect themselves with Palestine, and especially Jerusalem, and standard zealots for Moses and the law. The SECOD were Gentiles who, tired of idolatry and polytheism, were glad to learn from Judaism the doctrine of one true and holy God. One class went only so far as to accept the Monotheism and the so-called moral precepts of oah, without undergoing circumcision and the ritual of Moses; and, because thus stopping at the threshold, (or rather, perhaps, because they were strangers “within thy gates,” Exodus 20:10,) they were significantly named Proselytes of the Gate, while the receivers of the whole law were proudly styled Proselyres of Righteousness. The Grecians, Grecising Jews, or Hellenists, (see note on Acts 9:29,) were Jews by birth and circumcision, who, born in a foreign land, spake a foreign language, especially the Greek, and were held by the pure Jews to be tinctured with Gentilism, and so defective in the perfectness of their Judaism. They were inclined to liberalism, except when prompted by emulation to become more Jewish than the Jews themselves.

It was among the two latter classes that Christianity found most ready acceptance. The Gentile inclined to Monotheism was glad of a religion teaching holiness, salvation, and God, without circumcision and the burdens of ritual Mosaicism. The liberal Greek-speaking Jew or Hellenist glided easily into a resignation of the ceremonial law for a more spiritual piety. But the rigid, proud, intense Jew, most inflexible of all, was disposed to reject Christianity with a flout, or to accept it by the

half, and to carry into his Christianity fragments of old Judaism with a conscious superiority over his Christian brethren often intolerant and fanatical. It was from this class of Jews and Jewish Christians that Paul, though by blood a pure “Hebrew of the Hebrews,” suffered through his whole apostolic career.

The extremest of these became the Ebionites of later, but very early, Church history. It must therefore be acknowledged that this murmur, if not the first buzz of a long quarrel, did indicate a division of classes from which subsequent permanent quarrel would arise.

Widows—A turbulent and bloody age throws large numbers of widows upon the benevolence of the Church.

Daily ministration—The daily distribution of food to the home of each widow.

Ministration—Greek, διακονια diaconia, from which deacon and diaconate or deaconship are derived. Its composition from δια, through, and κονις, dust, if correct, implies a service through drudgery of a very humble sort. But Scripture nowhere applies the official title deacon to these men, and Luke seems even to avoid so doing (Acts 21:8) in calling Philip one of the seven. This is not parallel to calling the apostles the twelve, for that was their divinely limited and permanently fixed number. Luke’s phrase indeed apparently implies that “the seven” was a unique and memorable, though discontinued, class of men. The application to their office of the generic term diaconia, ministry, or the verb form of the word, is no proof of specific deaconship. The generic term is rendered ministry in Acts 6:4, serve, Acts 6:2, Luke 10:40, Luke 12:37, Luke 22:26-27.

COSTABLE, "The number of the disciples of Jesus continued to grow. This is the first mention of the word "disciple" in Acts where it occurs 28 times. The word appears about 238 times in the Gospels but nowhere else in the ew Testament. This is probably because when Jesus was present, or had just departed to heaven, the ew Testament writers referred to His followers in relationship to Him. Afterward they identified them in relation to one another and society. [ote: Blaiklock, p. 74.]

Two types of Jews made up the Jerusalem church. Some were native "Hebrews" who had lived primarily in Palestine, spoke Aramaic predominantly but also Greek, and used the Hebrew Scriptures. The others were "Hellenists" who originally lived outside Palestine (Jews of the Diaspora) but were now living in Palestine. Many of these Jews returned to Palestine to end their days in their ancestral homeland. They spoke Greek primarily, as well as the language of the area where they had lived, and they used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul classed himself among the Hebrews (2 Corinthians 11:22; cf. Philippians 3:5) though he grew up outside Palestine. The basic difference between the Hebrews and Hellenists, therefore, appears to have been linguistic. [ote: Witherington, pp. 240-43.] Those who could speak a Semitic language were Hebrews, and those who could not were Hellenists. [ote: C. F. D. Moule, "Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?" Expository Times 70 (October 1958-September 1959):100.] Within Judaism

frequent tensions between these two groups arose, and this cultural problem carried over into the church. The Hebrews observed the Mosaic Law much more strictly than their Hellenistic brethren. Conversely the Hellenists typically regarded the Hebrews as quite narrow-minded and self-centered.

The Hebrews and the Hellenists had their own synagogues in Jerusalem. [ote: Jewish Encyclopaedia, s.v. "Alexandrians in Jerusalem," by Emil Schürer.] But when they became Christians they came together in one fellowship. As the church grew, some of the Christians believed that the church leaders were discriminating against the Hellenists unfairly (cf. Ephesians 4:31; Hebrews 12:15). The conflict arose over the distribution of food to church widows (cf. Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32 to Acts 5:11). Care of widows and the needy was a priority in Judaism (Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:18; et al.). The Jews provided for their widows weekly in the synagogues along with the poor. [ote: B. W. Winter, "Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16," Tyndale Bulletin 39 (1988):89. See also Barclay, p. 50; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ, 2:437, n. 49; and Jeremias, Jerusalem in . . ., pp. 126-34.]

"It is not here said that the murmuring arose among the widows, but because of them. Women and money occasion the first serious disturbance in the church life." [ote: Robertson, 3:72-73.]

BURKITT, "Here observe, 1. How the number of Christians increased upon the foregoing persecution: as the Jewish church in Egypt, the more it was oppressed, the more it multiplied; so the Christian church here got ground by opposition; In those days the number of the disciples was multiplied Acts 6:1.

Observe, 2. How the number of believers increasing, there arose (as it too often happens among a multitude) a murmuring among them: The Grecians, that is, such Jews as were dispersed abroad among the Greeks, complaining that their widows were neglected, and received less than the widows of the Hebrews in the daily distribution of the church's money for charitable uses.

Thence learn, That neglect of the poor, particularly of the godly poor, is a sin in all, but especially in the churches of Christ.

Observe, 3. How the apostles desiring to have the poor well provided for, and not having leisure themselves personally to take care of them, advise the church to chuse seven persons out of the hundred and twenty, mentioned chapter the first, to be stewards and dispensers of the church's stock, to distribute the same with equity and indifference to all proper objects of charity without exception.

Thence learn, That a general concern for the poor, and a tender regard to their necessities and wants, is a duty that well becomes the ministers and ambassadors of God: God's poor are his treasure, his jewels, the signet upon his arm; they are always in his eye, and upon his heart: how well then doth it become the ministers of

God to take care of them who are so dear to him?

Observe, 4. How the apostles resolve to perform their duty to God and their people, with such zeal and application, as became persons of their holy character and profession. We will give ourselves continually unto prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Where note, 1. That such as are called by God to the work of the ministry, ought to give themselves wholly to it: We will give ourselves continually thereunto.

2. That a minister's giving himself unto prayer, is as great, if not a greater duty than giving himself to the preaching of the word: We will give ourselves continually unto prayer, and to the ministry of the word: To the one as the end, to the other as the mean; it is God that sets the word on work, but it is prayer that sets God on work: That minister that is not fervent in prayer cannot expect to be successful in preaching. Pray for us, says the apostle to the Thessalonians, that the word may run and be glorified; he that begged prayer of others, did not neglect it himself, but prayed without ceasing.

PULPIT, "ow in these for and in those, A.V. (it is not ἐκείναις, answering to מֵהָה ,but ταύταις); multiplying for multiplied, A.V.; Grecian Jews for Grecians ,מיַמיָּבַ A.V. The Grecian Jews; the Hellenists, for this is the appellation of them in the Greek; it means properly those who spoke Greek or otherwise followed Greek usages, applied to foreigners, here of course to Jews. Of a similar form and meaning is the word "to Judaize," translated "to live as do the Jews" (A.V., Galatians 2:14), and the forms "to Demosthenize," "to Platonize," "to Atticize," etc. The Hellenists were those Jews of the dispersion who lived in countries where Greek was spoken, and who themselves spoke Greek. It was for the sake of such that the Alexandrine Version of the Scriptures, commonly called the LXX., was made. Hebrews; Palestinian and other Jews, who spoke Aramean (2 Corinthians 11:21; Philippians 3:5; Acts 21:40), as opposed to the Hellenists. Their widows. We learn incidentally by this phrase that one of the earliest Christian institutions was an order of widows, who were maintained at the common cost. We find them in the Church of Joppa (Acts 9:41), and in the Church of Ephesus (1 Timothy 5:3, 1 Timothy 5:9, 1 Timothy 5:10, 1 Timothy 5:11, 1 Timothy 5:16). They gave themselves to prayer and to works of mercy. Daily; καθηµερινός only occurs here in the ew Testament, and rarely in Greek writers; ἐφηµερινός, of a daily fever, is used by Hippocrates, and may possibly have suggested the use of this rare word to Luke the physician.

PULPIT 1-8, "Wise counsels.

The prosperity of the Church was great. The first hypocrisy had been plucked up by the roots and burnt, so to speak in the presence of the whole congregation. A holy awe had mingled with faith and love to give intense reality to the religion of the disciples. The Spirit of God had borne active witness to the word of the apostles by signs and wonders; and the healing of many sick had conciliated multitudes and attached them to the Church. The apostles had been strengthened and encouraged

by the supernatural ministration of an angel bringing them forth from prison, and bidding them preach afresh in spite of their enemies; and at length their very enemies were silenced, and one of the chief of them had advised his fellows, "Leave these men alone." With a fresh burst of zeal, the preaching of Christ had been carried on, and the number of the disciples was greatly multiplied. But now a new danger arose. One of the first institutions of the growing body had been to supply the wants of the most desolate class—the widows—and to gladden their hearts by a daily ministration of food out of the common fund. But, in the rapid increase of numbers, the steps taken at first to secure abundance and fairness in the distribution had proved insufficient. The apostles, who hitherto had been the sole rulers and officers of the Church, had greater things to attend to than even the distribution of Church charities, and in their absence abuses had arisen. While the widows of the Hebrew converts, so called, were well cared for, the Hellenist widows, through some partiality on the part of those who had the management of the tables, were neglected. They were put off with worse places and scantier fare than their Hebrew sisters, or, maybe, found no place at all provided for them. aturally their friends felt aggrieved, and murmured at such inconsiderate treatment. And the Christian body, before so closely united in the bonds of love in Jesus Christ, showed signs of being split into two bodies, Hebrews and Hellenists. What was to be done? Was the danger to be despised, and were the complaints to be slighted because they only related to the meat that perisheth? Were the widows and their friends to be told that they ought to be occupied only about that meat which endureth unto eternal life, which the Son of man would give them freely and impartially, and their grievances to remain unredressed? Or, taking a juster and graver view of the matter, should the apostles diminish their spiritual labors, and give up their time and strength to the organization of the public charities and the distribution of the daily bread? They did neither. But with conspicuous wisdom they at once founded a new order of men, whose special business it should be to attend to the daily ministration, and see that none were favored and none left out. And, to conciliate confidence in the thorough impartiality of the distribution, they invited the whole Church to elect seven men of approved wisdom and piety, to whom this important trust should be committed. The plan seems to have been eminently successful, as we hear no more of murmurs and complaints. The practical lessons to be learnt are these.

1. ever despise other people's grievances or make light of them because they do not affect you. Especially let no pastor of a flock underrate the temporal and personal vexations of any parishioner who may lay them before him. To poor people even small losses seem very serious things. And if to the sense of loss there is added a sense of injustice or unfairness, the murmurs are very real, and represent deep-seated wounds. They must be kindly and judicially attended to.

2. Again, all, and especially the clergy, should feel the full importance of impartiality in dealing with their people. Favoritism in dispensing charity or even pastoral care must be resolutely eschewed, nobody must be "neglected" because others are preferred. Murmurs are not always loud; but be sure that any unfair or supercilious treatment will rankle in the breast; that, if extended to classes, it will make a serious

crack in the unity of the Church; and that it effectually prevents those who think themselves unfairly treated from reaping any profit from the ministrations of those by whom they think themselves so treated.

3. Lastly, the example of the apostles in this matter teaches those in authority not to attempt to do everything with their own hands, and not to be jealous of having able coadjutors to do the work thoroughly which they themselves of necessity can only do imperfectly. In leaving the choice of the new deacons to the congregation at large, instead of selecting them themselves, they showed a thoroughly liberal and wise spirit, and have left a lesson to the Church in all ages to trust the laity with all fitting power, and to evoke the latent energies of the body, by giving to every capable person some work to do for the glory of God and the welfare of his people.

HOLE 1-15, "Verses 1-15BEHID ALL THE attacks and difficulties which confronted the early church in Jerusalem lay the great adversary, Satan himself. He it was that stirred the Sadducees to violence and attempts to intimidate. He filled the heart of Ananias to lie, and thus bring in corruption, tempting the Spirit of the Lord. ow, these earlier attacks having been defeated, he moves in a more subtle way, exploiting small differences that existed within the church itself. The “Grecians” of whom the first verse of this chapter speaks, were not Gentiles but Greek-speaking Jews, coming from the lands of their dispersion, whereas the “Hebrews” were the home-born Jews of Jerusalem and Palestine.

The first and greater trouble within the church—that of Ananias—was about money. If the second was not about money, it was over a matter very akin to it; being as to the distribution of daily necessities, entailed by having all things common. The first was about getting the money in: the second about doling out the money, or its equivalent. Those from a distance thought that partiality was being shown in favour of the local people. The greater trouble created only a small difficulty, for it was met instantaneously in the Spirit’s power: the smaller trouble created the greater difficulty, as we see in our chapter. This, we believe, has nearly always been the way in the church’s history: the most difficult cases to settle are those in which at the bottom there is very little to be settled.

It was only a “murmuring” that arose, but the apostles did not wait for it to become a formidable outcry. They discerned that Satan’s object in it was to divert them from the preaching of the Word to social service, so they took steps to end any possible objections. They instructed the church to select seven men to undertake the business, who should be, “of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” Their administration was to be marked by wisdom and honesty that should be above all reproach.

In this business the church was to select its own officers; but then the business was the distribution of the funds and food that the church had itself provided. We never read of the church being called upon to select or appoint its elders or bishops or ministers of the Word, inasmuch as the spiritual grace and gifts which they

distribute are not provided by the church but by God. The selection and ordination of these consequently lies in the hands of God. To the elders at Ephesus Paul said, “The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” God appoints those who are to administer His bounty.

So the apostles continued to give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. For those who are taught the Word comes first (see 1 Timothy 4:5), for we only pray rightly as we are instructed in the Word. For those who minister prayer comes first, for apart from prayer they will not speak the Word aright.

Just as wisdom prevailed with the apostles, so grace prevailed in the church, for all the seven men chosen bore names which would suggest a

Grecian rather than a Hebrew origin, and one of them is said to have been a proselyte, which infers that he came even of Gentile extraction. In this way the multitude took care that all murmurings and questionings, whether well-founded or not, should be hushed to silence. The apostles identified themselves with the church’s choice, by laying their hands on the chosen men, with prayer. The adversary behind the scenes was again foiled.

He was more than foiled really; for instead of the apostles being diverted from the Word of God, it increased greatly, and many fresh conversions took place, even many priests being reached. Moreover one of the seven, Stephen, became a special vessel of the grace and power of the Spirit of God; so much so, that for the rest of our chapter, and the whole of Acts 7:1-60, we follow that which God wrought through him, until the time of his martyrdom.

The power operating in Stephen was so marked that it stirred up opposition in fresh quarters. The men of the various synagogues, mentioned in verse Acts 6:9, were apparently all of the Grecian class, to which Stephen himself belonged. All their argumentative skill was as nothing when pitted against the power of the Spirit in Stephen, so they had recourse to the usual device of lying witnesses and violence. In verse Acts 6:11 they put Moses in front of God; but then they knew what would most appeal to the passions of the crowd, to whom Moses, being a man, was more real than the invisible God. So also, in verse Acts 6:13, “this holy place” which was before their eyes, takes precedence of the law; and finally, “the customs which Moses delivered us,” were perhaps dearer to them than all. Dragging Stephen before the council, they charged him with blasphemy, and with proclaiming Jesus of azareth as a destroyer of their holy place and customs. There was this much truth in this charge, that the advent of Jesus had indeed inaugurated a new departure in the ways of God.

In this public way the controversy between the nation and God was carried a step further. They threw down the gauntlet, and God accepted their challenge by so filling Stephen with the Spirit that even the fashion of his face was altered, and everybody saw it. Through his lips the Holy Ghost proceeded to give a closing word of testimony against the nation. The council found themselves arraigned at the bar

of God by the Holy Ghost, speaking through the very man that was being arraigned at their bar.

SBC, "On the Office of the Diaconate

I. The origin of the office. (1) We are introduced here to a class of people called Grecians. They were proselytes to the Jewish worship, and Jews born and bred in foreign countries, whose language therefore was Greek. The home Jews or Hebrews looked down on the foreign Jews or Grecians as having contracted contamination by their long contact with the uncircumcised heathen. (2) The Grecians murmured. This disposition to grumble seriously threatened the well-being of the Church; it formed the gravest danger it had yet had to encounter. The Grecians complained that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. The diaconate was instituted when the temporal requirements of the Church urgently demanded it, and not a day before.

II. The duties of the office. (1) The seven men, according to the text, were elected to "serve." (2) They were elected to "serve tables." Speaking broadly, this means that they were to attend to the temporalities of the Church. Their chief duty is to manage the finances of the kingdom, but that done to their own and others’ satisfaction, they may extend the sphere of their usefulness, and assist in the furtherance of truth and goodness. (3) The deacons are to serve the tables of the ministers. One important object in the institution of the diaconate was to relieve the preachers of anxiety and distraction in the zealous pursuit of the work peculiar to themselves. (4) They are to serve the tables of the poor.

III. The qualifications for the office. (1) The first qualification is integrity. (2) Next comes piety, "Full of the Holy Ghost." (3) The third qualification is wisdom. Without wisdom, the deacon’s administration will do incalculably more harm than good. What is wisdom? A right application of knowledge. But this implies two things. (1) That he possesses the knowledge to be applied; (2) that he possesses tact to apply his knowledge in the pursuit of his official duties.

J. Cynddylan Jones, Studies in the Acts, p. 114.

Acts 6:1-6

Hellenist and Hebrew

From the very day of Pentecost, the Jerusalem congregation had embraced a number of Hellenists, or foreign-trained Jews, though we have no means of knowing what proportion they bore to those born in Palestine, called by Luke "Hebrews." It is certain that their influence must have been out of proportion to their numbers. They were men of higher average intelligence and energy than the villagers of Judæa, or the small traders of the capital, and were not likely to acquiesce silently in any neglect which, from being in a minority, they might suffer at the hands of the home-born.

I. The creation of the office of deacon showed all the better that it did not mean to show anything, how unfettered the new kingdom of Christ is by external regulations; how full of self-regulating power, how unhierarchical, how free, how unlike great modern Church establishments; how like a great family of brothers dividing among themselves the work to be done.

II. Another thing which the act of that day did, and was recognised even at the time as doing, was to begin the severance between the spiritual and temporal work of the Church. It had become impossible any longer to continue the serving of tables with the ministry of the Word. That the work might be well done, a division of labour was called for, and the Apostles could not hesitate which side of their double office they should abandon. To bear witness to the saving work of Jesus Christ is not a secondary or accidental function of the visible association we call the Church. It is its very end, its raison d’étre, its one task, to which all else is a mere accessory. Still, it deserves to be remarked how carefully the new office and its duties were lifted out of the atmosphere of mere business into that of worship. The men eligible to office are to be full of the Holy Ghost as well as of wisdom. They are to be set apart to their work with equally solemn religious services, and symbolical acts of consecration, as if their work had nothing to do with serving tables. The earliest instinct of the Church was a perfectly true one, that no office in the kingdom of God can be discharged as it ought to be, no matter how exclusively external or secular it may appear, unless it be discharged by a spiritual man, and in a spiritual way. All the servants of the Church must be first servants of her Master, "men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost."

J. Oswald Dykes, From Jerusalem to Antioch, p. 207 (see also Preacher’s Lantern, vol. iv., p. 641).

References: Act_6:1-7.—E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 1; Homilist, 3rd series, vol. iv., p. 311. Act_6:2.—J. Baldwin Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 309. Act_6:5.—Bishop Simpson, Sermons, p. 159. Act_6:7.—Spurgeon, Sermons,vol. xiv., No. 802; J. N. Norton, Old Paths, p. 292. Act_6:8-10.—E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 41. Act_6:8-15.—Homilist, 3rd series, vol. v., p. 12.

Acts 6:1-7:60

Acts 6; Acts 7

Stephen.

From the history of Stephen we learn:—

I. That fidelity to truth provokes antagonism; holiness and sin are mutually repellent; love and selfishness are the opposites of each other; and sooner or later the followers of the one will come into collision with the votaries of the other. The opposition of the ungodly is one of the seals to the genuineness of our discipleship; and if we bear ourselves rightly under it, who can tell but that it may be the occasion of blessing to multitudes? The banner which hangs in idle folds round the flagstaff in the sultry stillness of the summer noon, is fully unfurled by the wild rudeness of the wintry wind; and men may see in the latter case the emblem and inscription which were invisible in the former. Even so the antagonism of our spiritual adversaries is valuable, in that it brings forth anew those traits of Christian character and points of Christian doctrine which otherwise would have been unobserved.

II. The deep interest which the glorified Redeemer has in His suffering followers. He cannot sit in such an emergency, for He is Himself persecuted in His dying disciple, and must go to soothe and sustain Him. Our foes can strike us only through our Saviour’s heart. He is our shield and buckler, our high tower and our deliverer.

III. The peacefulness of the believer’s death. "When he had said this, he fell asleep." These words tell of the peace that was in the martyr’s heart. You cannot go to sleep with anxiety fretting your spirit; but when your mind is calm and undisturbed, then the night angel comes to you with her gift of forgetfulness and her ministry of restoration. So when we read that Stephen fell asleep, we see through the words into the deep unbroken quiet of his soul.

IV. Words which seem to have been in vain are not always fruitless. Stephen’s defence was unsuccessful so far, at least, as securing the preservation of his own life was concerned. But his argument was not lost, for when not long afterward the zealous Saul was converted on his way to Damascus, this address, I have no doubt, came back upon him, and became the means which, in the hands of the Holy Ghost, were used for his enlightenment in the significance of the gospel of Christ.

W. M. Taylor, Paul the Missionary, p. 1.

2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.

BARES, "Then the twelve - That is, the apostles. Matthias had been added to them after the apostasy of Judas, which had completed the original number.

The multitude of the disciples - It is not necessary to suppose that all the disciples were convened, which amounted to many thousands, but that the business was laid before a large number; or perhaps “the multitude” here means those merely who were more particularly interested in the matter, and who had been engaged in the complaint.

It is not reason - The original words used here properly denote “it is not pleasing or agreeable”; but the meaning evidently is, it is not “suitable” or “proper.” It would be a departure from the design of their appointment, which was to preach the gospel, and not to attend to the pecuniary affairs of the church.

Leave the word of God - That we should neglect or abandon the preaching of the gospel so much as would be necessary if we attended personally to the distribution of the alms of the church. The “gospel” is here called the “Word of God,” because it is his message; it is what he has spoken, or which he has commanded to be proclaimed to people.

Serve tables - This expression properly denotes “to take care of, or provide for the table, or for the daily needs of a family.” It is an expression that properly applies to a

steward or a servant. The word “tables” is, however, sometimes used with reference to “money,” as being the place where money was kept for the purpose of “exchange, etc.,” Mat_21:12; Mat_25:27. Here the expression means, therefore, to attend to the pecuniary transactions of the church, and to make the proper distribution for the needs of the poor.

CLARKE, "It is not reason - Ουκ�αρεστον�εστι, it is not pleasing, proper, or fitting, that we should leave the word of God, that we should give up ourselves, or confide to others, the doctrine of salvation which God has commanded us to preach unto the people.

And serve tables - Become providers of daily bread for your widows and poor: others can do this, to whom our important office is not intrusted.

GILL, "Then the twelve,.... The twelve apostles, as the Syriac version reads; for their number was now complete, Matthias being chosen in the room of Judas: these being informed of the murmur there was between the two sorts of believers, the Hebrew and thc Hellenistic Jews,

called the multitude of the disciples unto them; either the hundred and twenty, the original members of the church, which first formed it, and on whom the Holy Ghost descended on the day of Pentecost; or rather the whole body of the church: for what the apostles had to say concerned them all; and they all had an equal right to chose their officers, that should minister unto them; and when they were convened together, they addressed them after this manner:

and said, it is not reason; or "it is not pleasing", neither to God, nor to us; so the Arabic version reads, "this does not please us"; nor could it be pleasing to the church itself:

that we should leave the word of God the study of the word, meditation upon it, and preaching it: not that they did relinquish either of these; but they were sometimes obliged to omit them, or not so frequently attend them; the care of the poor taking up more of their time, than the work of the ministry, or preaching of the Gospel would admit of; and therefore thought it not so right and proper, or so acceptable a thing to God and man, that they should in the least neglect a work of so great importance to the souls of men, and cause it to give way to that which only regarded their bodies:

and serve tables; the tables of the poor, collect for them, inspect into their several cases, and circumstances, and distribute accordingly to them; which required a good deal of time, care, thought, and circumspection, especially in such a church, where the numbers were so large. From hence we learn what is the business of deacons, who were afterwards appointed to take this part of the apostles' work off of their hands, and attend to it; which is to serve tables: the table of the Lord, by providing the bread and wine for it; receiving both from the minister, when blessed, and distributing them to the members; and collecting from them for the poor, and the defraying the charge; and observing what members are missing at the ordinance, whom they are to admonish; and if their admonitions are not regarded, to report it to the church: and they are likewise to serve the minister's table, by taking care that he has a sufficient competency for his

support; and it belongs to them to stir up the members of the church to their duty in communicating to him; and what they receive of them, they are to apply to his use: and also, they are to serve the poor's table; to whom they are to distribute of the church's stock, with all impartiality, simplicity, cheerfulness, and sympathy.

HERY, " The apostles urge that they could by no means admit so great a diversion, as this would be, from their great work (Act_6:2): It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. The receiving and paying of money was serving tables, too like the tables of the money-changers in the temple. This was foreign to the business which the apostles were called to. They were to preach the word of God; and though they had not such occasion to study for what they preached as we have (it being given in that same hour what they should speak), yet they thought that was work enough for a whole man, and to employ all their thoughts, and cares, and time, though one man of them was more than ten of us, than ten thousand. If they serve tables, they must, in some measure, leave the word of God; they could not attend their preaching work so closely as they ought. Pectora nostra duas non admittentia curas - These minds of ours admit not of two distinct anxious employments. Though this serving of tables was for pious uses, and serving the charity of rich Christians and the necessity of poor Christians, and in both serving Christ, yet the apostles would not take so much time from their preaching as this would require. They will no more be drawn from their preaching by the money laid at their feet than they will be driven from it by the stripes laid on their backs. While the number of the disciples was small, the apostles might manage this matter without making it any considerable interruption to their main business; but, now that their number was increased, they could not do it. It is not

reason, ouk�areston�estin - it is not fit, or commendable, that we should neglect the business of feeding souls with the bread of life, to attend the business of relieving the bodies of the poor. Note, Preaching the gospel is the best work, and the most proper and needful that a minister can be employed in, and that which he must give himself wholly to (1Ti_4:15), which that he may do, he must not entangle himself in the affairs of this life (2Ti_2:4), no, not in the outward business of the house of God, Neh_11:16.

(2.) They therefore desire that seven men might be chosen, well qualified for the

purpose, whose business it should be to serve tables, diakonein�trapezais - to be deacons to the tables, Act_6:2. The business must be minded, must be better minded than it had been, and than the apostles could mind it; and therefore proper persons must be occasionally employed in the word, and prayer, were not so entirely devoted to it as the apostles were; and these must take care of the church's stock - must review, and pay, and keep accounts - must buy those things which they had need of against the feast (Joh_13:29), and attend to all those things which are necessary in ordine ad spiritualia - in order to spiritual exercises, that every thing might be done decently and in order, and no person nor thing neglected. Now,

JAMISO 2-4, "the multitude— the general body of the disciples.

It is not reason— The word expresses dislike; that is “We cannot submit.”

to leave the word of God— to have our time and attention withdrawn from preaching; which, it thus appears, they regarded as their primary duty.

to serve tables— oversee the distribution of provisions.

HAWKER 2-4, "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and

said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. (3) Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

The twelve Apostles, including Matthias, are here engaged in making suitable arrangements for the correcting of the present, and any future errors which might arise in the Church. And, from this authority it should seem, first sprung that order, which all well regulated societies in the faith have since observed, in the appointment of subordinate offices to the ministry in the Church. Moses, at the suggestion of Jethro, adopted somewhat of the same plan in his days, Exo_18:14, etc. How truly Apostolic was this advice? How affectionately, as to brethren, was it delivered? And what a lovely view doth it afford of Christ’s Church, in this blessed age of the Apostles? We, (said they,) will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. As if, (and which in one sense is literally the case,) their very persons, as well as their time and labors, were not their own. For though Apostles, their eminency consisted not in rank, but in usefulness. Jesus their Lord, while loving their persons, loved their office no further than as it ministered to his glory, and the feeding his sheep, Joh_21:15-17. Peter, to whom Christ gave this charge (and thrice repeating it, as if to intimate the importance of it,) in his last exercises of his Apostleship, dwelt upon it very sweetly; The elders which are among you, (said he,) I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away, 1Pe_5:1-4.

CALVI, "2.The twelve having the multitude called unto them It is a point [proof] of patience and meekness that the apostles are no more moved. (314) It is a point of prudence and godly carefulness, in that they prevent the evil which began to arise, (315) without deferring the remedy. For after that every dissension and division hath gathered strength, it is a wound hard to be cured. By this assembly it appeareth that the Church was governed by order and reason, so that the apostles had the chiefest authority, and that they did impart their counsels and purposes unto the people. (316) Again, we must note that the faithful, or Christians, are in this place called disciples, in whom that of Isaiah must be fulfilled, “That they were all taught of God.” And again, that of Jeremiah, “They shall all know God, from the least to the greatest.”

It pleaseth not. It is in Greek [ ουκ αρεστον ] By which word, the Grecians do now express every opinion or decree which is better than another, or which is to be preferred as being better. (317) I do rather think that the apostles declare what is profitable, than simply what they have decreed. But if it be not expedient for them to meddle with this business, (318) they seem [now] to acknowledge some fault in that they ministered hitherto. And surely that is true, that use is the father of wisdom. (319) Wherefore there shall be no absurdity if we shall say, that the apostles desire of the Church to be unburdened of that function, after that they have tried [experienced] that it is not meet for them. But if there were any fault, it ought rather to be ascribed unto necessity than unto them; for they took not this burthen

upon them greedily, but seeing there was no other way as yet, they had better burthen themselves out of measure than that the poor should be forslowed. (320) And when as they say that it is not meet that they should be occupied in providing for the poor, their meaning is, that are unable to endure both burthens, so that they must needs let the one alone. For it is as if they should say, If thou wilt enjoy our ministry in the preaching of the gospel, deliver us from the charge of the poor, because we are not able to do both. But this seemeth to be spoken out of season by them, because they had not left the charge of teaching before, although they had the oversight of the alms. I answer, forasmuch as the administration was confused, they were so enwrapped, (321) that they could not wholly attend upon doctrine as was meet. Therefore, they refuse that function which draweth them away from the free and perfect (322) charge of teaching. otwithstanding, we may not think that they had quite cast away all care of the poor, but that they did only seek somewhat to be lightened and eased, that they might attend upon their office. And, in the mean season, they declare that the ministry of the word is so painful (323) that it requireth a whole man, neither will it suffer him to be occupied about any other business; which, if it had been well considered, there had been a far other order taken in the Church.

The Popish bishops did suck (324) up great riches under color of the ministration or deaconship; nevertheless, they entangled themselves in divers businesses, which they were scarce able to overcome, (325) though every one of them had had ten heads. otwithstanding, such is their wickedness, that they say that there can be no church unless it be drowned in this depth; (326) neither do they cease to brag and boast that they are the successors of the apostles, whereas there is nothing which appeareth to be more contrary. They were careful for this, that they might not be occupied about serving of tables, and so be compelled to leave their own banquets. For whosoever is careful for his own table, he taketh leave to be vacant (327) from other men’s tables.

But omitting these things, let us mark this sentence. We know what a holy thing it is to be careful for the poor. Therefore, forasmuch as the apostles prefer the preaching of the gospel before if we gather thereby that no obedience is more acceptable to God. otwithstanding, the hardness is also declared, (328) when as they say that they cannot discharge both these duties. Surely we are not better than they. Therefore, let every one of us that is called unto the function of teaching addict himself wholly to order this his estate well. (329) For we are inclined to nothing more than to fall to slothfulness. Again, the flesh ministereth goodly cloaks and colors, so that those men cannot see by and by that they are led away from their calling which enwrap themselves in strange business. Wherefore, to the end ministers may prick forward themselves to do their duty, let them remember this saying of the apostles oftentimes, wherein they declare that, forasmuch as they are called unto the function of teaching, they must not any longer take charge of the poor. Therefore, what excuses have profane affairs (330) (taken in hand even for some private gain) where that is set aside, which is otherwise accounted no small part of the worship of God.

OTES, "The Twelve did not handle this on their own, but called all the disciples

together and had an all member business meeting. This was an issues that they would not resolve by their authority, but one on which they wanted the input of the whole church. Jesus did not give the Apostles a constitution for the church to guide its formation and conduct for all time. The church was expected to make provision for new issues as they developed, for not everything can be known ahead of time. ew problems face the church in every age, and so the people have to make decisions as to how they should be dealt with by the church. Many problems face the church today that the early church never dreamed of having, and so it is no use going back to the early church for guidance on all things. We have the same Holy Spirit today to give wisdom and guidance in making decisions to solve problems. Basic principles are in the Bible, but specific programs need to be developed with the aid of the Holy Spirit working through godly people who are prayerfully open to his leading.

The Twelve recognized that their had to be a distinguishing of ministries. They were called to preach the Gospel to all the world. Their task was to feed the minds and souls of men from the Word of God. They were called to serve the bread of life. This was a full time job and left no time for the ministry of making sure the poor had enough to eat. This type of welfare job was a vital part of the Christian ministry, but it was not one to which they were called. They had to specialize in their work and so someone else not called to their task had to be found to do the job. obody can do everything well, and so their has to be division of labor in the church. A pastor who is out doing all kinds of good things in social ministry is likely neglecting the ministry of the Word of God, for he cannot do both, for all men have the same limitation of time. The Apostles were being wise here and were redeeming the time so as to fulfill the purpose for which they were trained by Christ. Good things are negative if they rob you of the best things, and so we all have to choose to what we are going to give our life and time to. This means, like the Apostles, we must say sometimes, “o, I can’t do that, for I must give myself to what I feel I am called to do.”

A wise person is one who has priorities and is not living by the whims of chance. They do not just drift toward this work and that as the circumstances dictate, but they have goals they strive for all the time. They may take detours from time to time, and get off their chosen road, but they are soon back on the road to their goal. They have a purpose for their lives and they will not let even good things make them forsake the best thing they desire to do for their Lord and the Kingdom of God. If you fell obligated to do anything and everything that comes along as a need, you might be called to be a general practitioner, but you might also be lacking specific goals for your life. Wise is the person who seeks specific goals that they feel are God’s will for them, and then makes sure that good things do not rob them of the best. Such was the plan of the Apostles. For some this will mean feeding the poor as a life goal, or doing other social work to meet human needs. ot all are called to minister the Word of God.

OUTLINE OF CONTEXT

THE PROBLEM

THE PROPOSAL

THE PRIORITY

THE PROSPECTS

THE PERSECUTION

COKE, "Acts 6:2. The multitude of the disciples— That is, the whole body of Christian converts; they being the persons to whom satisfaction was then due. And serve tables, is in the Greek δικκονειν τραπεζαις, to minister to, or take care of the tables, that is, of the poor;—to attend to the distribution of charitable gifts among them.

BESO 2-4, " Then the twelve — For such was now again their number, Matthias having supplied the place of Judas; called the multitude of the disciples unto them — ot the rest of the one hundred and twenty merely, but the whole body of Christian converts, they being the persons to whom satisfaction was then due. See Whitby. It was of great importance that the apostles should immediately take measures to suppress these rising murmurs and discontents; for had they been suffered to remain and take root, they might have produced dangerous disputes and divisions, and have involved the apostles themselves in suspicion and censure. It is not reason — ουκ αρεστον εστιν, it is not right, proper, or, pleasing; namely, to God; that we — Who have an office to discharge of so much greater weight and consequence; should leave the word of God — Should be less frequently employed in dispensing it; and serve tables — Attend to the distribution of money to relieve the wants of the poor; and yet this we must do, in order to prevent these complaints, unless some further measures be taken by common consent. Wherefore, brethren —As you see how inconvenient it would be to suffer this care to lie upon us, and how inevitably it would render us incapable of attending to the proper duties of our office; look ye out among you seven men — A number sufficient for the present; of honest report — That there may be no room to suspect them of partiality and injustice; full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom — For it is not a light matter to dispense even the temporal goods of the church. To do even this well, a large measure both of the gifts and grace of God is requisite. Whom we may appoint over this business — It would have been happy for the church, had its ordinary ministers, in every age, taken the same care to act in concert with the people committed to their charge, which the apostles themselves, extraordinary as their office was, did on this and other occasions. It may be proper to observe here, that in the first church, the primary business of apostles, evangelists, and elders, was to preach the word of God; the secondary, to take a kind of paternal care (the church being then like a family) for the support especially of the poor, the strangers, and the widows. Afterward, as here, the deacons were constituted for this latter business. And whatever time they had to spare from this, they employed in works of spiritual mercy. But their proper office was to take care of the poor. And when some of them afterward preached the gospel, they did this, not by virtue of their deaconship, but of another commission, that of evangelists, which they probably received, not before, but after they were appointed deacons. And it is not unlikely

that others were chosen deacons, or stewards, in their room, when any of these commenced evangelists. But we — Being thus freed from this great encumbrance; will give ourselves continually — Will dedicate our whole time; to prayer, and to the ministry of the word — Which is our grand business, and which we would be glad to prosecute without interruption. It is, doubtless, still the proper business of a Christian minister, whether termed a pastor, elder, or bishop, to speak to God in prayer; and to men in preaching his word, as an ambassador for Christ.

COFFMA, "The twelve ... "shows that Matthias was one of the apostles, for it would take him to complete the list of the twelve."[5]

It is not fit that we should ... Many commentators read this as if it said, "It is not fit that we should COTIUE to serve tables," assuming that until this incident the twelve had personally distributed the food to the needy; but such is not stated here, nor is it likely that the twelve had been doing such work, except perhaps, occasionally, volunteers, in all probability, having done the most of it.

Serve tables ... The word "serve" has the meaning of "minister to," and is rendered from the Greek word [@diakonia], a derivative from [@diakonos], the latter term being rendered "by three English words in our version: MIISTER; SERVAT, and DEACO."[6] It is upon this rather precarious basis that the men here appointed are often called "deacons." Significantly, the record here does not so name them, nor is there very much similarity between their status and that of the deacons Paul commanded Timothy to appoint. The men here were not assistants to elders of the church, but to the Twelve; and, furthermore, they were endowed by a laying on of the hands of the apostles. Perhaps the best name for them is the Seven, as Luke himself called them (Acts 21:8).

[5] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Acts (ashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953, p. 95.

[6] Ibid.

ELLICOTT, "(2) Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples.—The Apostles meet the crisis with singular tact and moderation. They do not resent the suspicion; they are not careful to vindicate themselves against it. They remembered, it may be, the precedent presented by the life of Moses (Exodus 18:25), and they act, as he had acted, by delegating part of their authority to others. The collective action of the multitude is strikingly in harmony with the Greek ideas attached to the word Ecclesia, as the assembly in which every citizen might take his share. Representative government might come as a necessity of later times; as yet, every member of the congregation, every citizen of the new polity, was invited, as having a right to vote.

It is not reason.—Literally, It is not pleasing, as in Acts 12:3. The word implies that they had undertaken a burdensome duty, not for their own pleasure, because they liked it, but for the good of the community.

And serve tables.—The word was used for the “tables” of money-changers, as in Matthew 21:12, John 2:15, and was, therefore, equally appropriate whether we think of the relief as being given in money or in kind.

PETT, "‘And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them, and said, “It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables.” ’

The Apostles immediately responded to the complaint which they recognised may well be justified in the circumstances. They pointed out that it was their responsibility to spread and teach the word of God, a work which must not be restricted by the need to deal with administrative problems. It was not fitting that it should be so.

‘Serve tables.’ Whether this meant that food was gathered on table for distribution, or is simply an expression meaning ‘serving the wherewithal for meals’ we do not know. If in fact tables were set up the problem may simply have been that not all were not in a position to come to where the tables were. Either way the Apostles wanted others to take on the responsibility for it.

ote the emphasis on the fact that the twelve acted together. It was a united leadership. There is no thought of anyone having precedence in such decisions.

WHEDO, "2. Then the twelve—This is the first recorded movement for forming a Church economy; we can hardly say government. Beyond the appointment of his twelve, Christ had left no draft of a constitution for his Church.

There is clearly no connection between this seven and the seventy deacons sent forth by our Lord, nor any certain connection between them and the deacons of the Epistles or of subsequent ecclesiastical history. The whole movement of their election is a measure of immediate expediency, suggested by an incidental want, adopted without any claim or consciousness of special inspiration, and without the least apparent thought that they are adopting a permanent order for the universal Church, without which a complete and valid Church cannot exist. The whole act suggests the doctrine that any Church is endowed by the great Head of the Church with the right of shaping itself into any organic form most conducive to its great mission of salvation. (See note on Acts 13:3.)

Called the multitude—The apostolic mind originates the new idea, but the body of the Church alone can give it reality. The thought moves in the brain, but the energetic and active soul lives in the whole body.

Serve tables—The Greek word τραπεζα may signify either a money table or a meal table indifferently, (Matthew 16:27, Acts 16:34, and also Matthew 21:12, and Luke 19:23,) and perhaps includes both here.

This deaconship was certainly not a merely pecuniary office, a mere agency to apply the moneys laid at the apostles’ feet. In all probability the seven, with the funds,

supplied the ministrations of the daily table-provisions where the oversights took place.

COSTABLE 2-4, "The 12 apostles wisely delegated responsibility for this ministry to other qualified men in the congregation so it would not distract them from their primary duties. This is the only reference to the Twelve in Acts (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:5), though Luke referred to the Eleven earlier (Acts 2:14). Serving tables probably involved the organization and administration of ministry to the widows rather than simply serving as waiters or dispensers (cf. Matthew 21:12; Luke 19:23). [ote: Longenecker, p. 331.]

The leaders of the church asked the congregation to nominate seven qualified men whom the apostles would officially appoint. Many churches today take this approach in selecting secondary church leaders basing their practice on this model. For example, the congregation nominates deacons, and the elders appoint some or all of them. This approach was common in Judaism. It was not a new plan that the apostles devised, though it was new to the church.

"Selecting seven men may go back to the tradition in Jewish communities where seven respected men managed the public business in an official council." [ote: Toussaint, "Acts," p. 367.]These men needed to have good reputations, to be under the Spirit's control, and to be wise (Acts 6:3). ote that these are character traits, not special talents or abilities (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). The Twelve then would be free to concentrate on their primary responsibilities: prayer and the ministry of God's Word (Acts 6:4).

"It is not necessarily suggested that serving tables is on a lower level than prayer and teaching; the point is rather that the task to which the Twelve had been specifically called was one of witness and evangelism." [ote: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 126.]As elsewhere in Scripture, prayer is the primary way God has ordained whereby His people secure His working in human affairs.

"Prayer is the most powerful and effective means of service in the Kingdom of God ... It is the most dynamic work which God has entrusted to His saints, but it is also the most neglected ministry open to the believer."The Bible clearly reveals that believing prayer is essential for the advancement of the cause of Christ. It is the essential element for Christian victory ..."We may marvel at the spiritual power and glorious victories of the early apostolic church, but we often forget that its constant prayer life was the secret of its strength ..."If the church today would regain the spiritual power of the early church it must recover the truth and practice of prayer as a vital working force." [ote: D. Edmond Hiebert, Working With God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession, pp. 19-20.]

PULPIT, "And for then, A.V.; fit for reasons, A.V.; forsake for leave, A.V. It is not

fit; literally, pleasing; ἀρεστόν is often the rendering of בֹוט in the LXX.; e.g. Gem Acts 16:6; Deuteronomy 12:28. In Exodus 15:26, Deuteronomy 6:18, etc., it stands for ָרָׁשי, that which is right. Serve tables . The English reader should remember that the "ministration" of Deuteronomy 6:1, the "serve" of this verse, and the "deacon" which was the name of the new officers, are all forms of the same Greek word ( διακονία διακονεῖν διάκονος). In Deuteronomy 6:4 "the ministry of the Word" is opposed to "the daily ministration" of meat. The passage gives a necessary warning to the ministers of God's Word not to spend too much time and strength upon any secular work, even though it be a work of charity. They must give themselves to the Word of God and to prayer. There are Christian laity to serve tables.

3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them

BARES, "Look ye out - Select, or choose. As this was a matter pertaining to their own pecuniary affairs, it was proper that “they” should be permitted to choose such men as they could confide in. By this means the apostles would be free from all suspicions. It could not be pretended that “they” were partial, nor could it ever be charged on them that they wished to embezzle the funds by managing them themselves, or by entrusting them to men of their own selection. It follows from this, also, that the right of selecting “deacons” resides “in” the church, and does not pertain to the ministry. It is evidently proper that men who are to be entrusted with the alms of the church should be selected by the church itself.

Among you - That is, from among the Grecians and Hebrews, that there may be justice done, and no further cause of complaint.

Seven men - Seven was a sacred number among the Hebrews, but there does not appear to have been any “mystery” in choosing this number. It was a convenient number, sufficiently large to secure the faithful performance of the duty, and not so large as to cause confusion and embarrassment. It does not follow, however, that the same number is now to be chosen as deacons in a church, for the precise number is not commanded.

Of honest report - Of fair reputation; regarded as men of integrity. Greek: “testified of,” or “bear witness to”; that is, whose characters were well known and fair.

Full of the Holy Ghost - This evidently does not mean endowed with miraculous gifts, or the power of speaking foreign languages, for such gifts were not necessary to the

discharge of their office, but it means people who were eminently under the influence of the Holy Spirit, or who were of distinguished piety. This was all that was necessary in the case, and this is all that the words fairly imply.

And wisdom - Prudence, or skill, to make a wise and equable distribution. The qualifications of deacons are still further stated and illustrated in 1Ti_3:8-10. In this place it is seen that they must be people of eminent piety and fair character, and that they must possess “prudence,” or wisdom, to manage the affairs connected with their office. These qualifications are indispensable to a faithful discharge of the duty entrusted to the officers of the church.

Whom we may appoint -Whom we may “constitute,” or set over this business. The way in which this was done was by prayer and the imposition of hands, Act_6:6. Though they were “selected” by the church, yet the power of ordaining them, or setting them apart, was retained by the apostles. Thus, the rights of “both” were preserved - the right of the church to designate those who should serve them in the office of deacon, and the right of the apostles to organize and establish the church with its appropriate officers; on the one hand, a due regard to the liberty and privileges of the Christian community, and, on the other, the security of proper respect for the office as being of apostolic appointment and authority.

Over this business - That is, over the distribution of the alms of the church - not to preach, or to govern the church, but solely to take care of the sacred funds of charity, and distribute them to supply the needs of the poor. The office is distinguished from that of “preaching” the gospel. To that the apostles were to attend. The deacons were expressly set apart to a different work, and to that work they should be confined. In this account of their original appointment, there is not the slightest intimation that they were to “preach,” but the contrary is supposed in the whole transaction. Nor is there here the slightest intimation that they were regarded as an order of “clergy,” or as in any way connected with the clerical office. In the ancient synagogues of the Jews there were three men to whom was entrusted the care of the poor. They were called by the Hebrews “parnasin” or “pastors” (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talin.; Mat_4:23). From these officers the apostles took the idea probably of appointing deacons in the Christian church, and doubtless intended that their duties should be the same.

CLARKE, "Wherefore - look ye out among you seven men - Choose persons in whom ye can all confide, who will distribute the provisions impartially, and in due time; and let these persons be the objects of the choice both of the Hebrews and Hellenists, that all cause of murmuring and discontent may be done away. Though seven was a sacred number among the Jews, yet there does not appear to be any mystery intended here. Probably the seven men were to take each his day of service; and then there would be a superintendent for these widows, etc., for each day of the week.

Of honest report -Μαρτυρουµενους Persons to whose character there is authentic testimony, well known and accredited.

Full of the Holy Ghost - Saved into the spirit of the Gospel dispensation; and made partakers of that Holy Ghost by which the soul is sanctified, and endued with those graces which constitute the mind that was in Christ.

And wisdom - Prudence, discretion, and economy; for mere piety and uprightness could not be sufficient, where so many must be pleased, and where frugality, impartiality, and liberality, must ever walk hand in hand.

Whom we may appoint - Instead of καταστησωµεν, we may appoint, καταστησοµεν, we shall appoint, is the reading of ABCDE, and several others. It makes, however, very little difference in the sense.

GILL, "Wherefore brethren look ye out among you,.... Or "choose out among you", as the Syriac version adds, and as the Arabic and Ethiopic versions render it; which shows that this sort of officers, deacons, must be members of the church, and of the same church to which they are ordained deacons; and that they must be chosen to that office by the whole community, or by the common suffrages and votes of the people. So the (b) Jews

"did not appoint פרנס, (which may be rendered) "an overseer of the poor", in a congregation, without consulting the congregation;''

which officer seems pretty much to answer to a deacon.

Seven men, of honest report; why the number seven is fixed upon, perhaps no other solid reason is to be given, but that that number was judged sufficient for the care of the poor in that church, and at that time; nor is it obligatory on other churches to have just so many, neither more nor fewer; for such officers are to be chosen as the church

requires: perhaps some regard might be had to טובי�העיר the seven good men of the" ,שבעה(c) city" among the Jews, who had great authority in their synagogues, and who had power to sell them, when old and useless; and who seem, according to Maimonides (d), to be the elders of the people. It is necessary that this sort of officers in the church should be men "of honest report"; that have a good testimony both from within the church and without, of their honesty and fidelity; since they are intrusted with the church's stock, and have the care of many devolved upon them: so the collectors of alms

among the Jews were to be men ידועים�ונאמנים, "known and faithful" (e); men of known probity and integrity: and, besides this good and honest report they were to have from others, they were also to be men

full of the Holy Ghost, of wisdom; they were to be men, not only that had the Spirit of God in them, but who were eminent for their rich experiences of grace; and who had superior gifts of the Spirit, whereby they were capable both of defending the truth against opposers, and of speaking a word of exhortation to duty, or of comfort under distress, or of reproof to members, as circumstances required; and it may be at this time when the church consisted of some of all nations, as seems from Act_2:9 it might be necessary that they should have the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, especially that of speaking with divers tongues, that they might be able to converse with persons of different languages: and "wisdom" is highly requisite in them, that they may be good economists of the church's stock, and dispose of it in the most prudent manner: and conduct themselves agreeably to the different tempers and spirits of men they have to do with, and especially in composing differences among members.

Whom we may appoint over this business; assign or make over that part of their office to them, which hitherto they had exercised, and install them into it, and invest them with it.

HERY, "The persons must be duly qualified. The people are to choose, and the apostles to ordain; but the people have no authority to choose, nor the apostles to ordain, men utterly unfit for the office: Look out seven men; so many they thought might suffice for the present, more might be added afterwards if there were occasion. These must be, First, Of honest report, men free from scandal, that were looked upon by their neighbours as men of integrity, and faithful men, well attested, as men that might be trusted, not under a blemish for any vice, but, on the contrary, well spoken of for

every thing that is virtuous and praiseworthy; marturoumenous -men that can produce good testimonials concerning their conversation. Note, Those that are employed in any office in the church ought to be men of honest report, of a blameless, nay, of an admirable character, which is requisite not only to the credit of their office, but to the due discharge of it. Secondly, They must be full of the Holy Ghost, must be filled with those gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost which were necessary to the right management of this trust. They must not only be honest men, but they must be men of ability and men of courage; such as were to be made judges in Israel (Exo_18:21), able men, fearing God; men of truth, and hating covetousness; and hereby appearing to be full of the Holy Ghost. Thirdly, They must be full of wisdom. It was not enough that they were honest, good men, but they must be discreet, judicious men, that could not be imposed upon, and would order things for the best, and with consideration: full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom, that is, of the Holy Ghost as a Spirit of wisdom. We find the word of wisdom given by the Spirit, as distinct form the word of knowledge by the same Spirit, 1Co_12:8. Those must be full of wisdom who are entrusted with public money, that it may be disposed of, not only with fidelity, but with frugality.

[2.] The people must nominate the persons: “Look you out among yourselves seven men; consider among yourselves who are the fittest for such a trust, and whom you can with the most satisfaction confide in.” They might be presumed to know better, or at least were fitter to enquire, what character men had, than the apostles; and therefore they are entrusted with the choice.

[3.] They apostles will ordain them to the service, will give them their charge, that they may know what they have to do and make conscience of doing it, and give them their authority, that the persons concerned may know whom they are to apply to, and submit to, in affairs of that nature: Men, whom we may appoint. In many editions of our English Bibles there has been an error of the press here; for they have read it, whom ye may appoint, as if the power were in the people; whereas it was certainly in the apostles: whom we may appoint over this business, to take care of it, and to see that there be neither waste nor want.

JAMISO, "look ye out among you— that is, ye, “the multitude,” from among yourselves.

seven men of honest report— good reputation (Act_10:22; 1Ti_3:7).

full of the Holy Ghost— not full of miraculous gifts, which would have been no qualification for the duties required, but spiritually gifted (although on two of them miraculous power did rest).

and wisdom— discretion, aptitude for practical business.

whom we may appoint— for while the election was vested in the Christian people, the appointment lay with the apostles, as spiritual rulers.

CALVI, "3.Therefore, brethren, look out. ow we see to what end deacons were made. The word itself is indeed general, yet is it properly taken for those which are stewards for the poor. Whereby it appeareth how licentiously the Papists do mock God and men, who assign unto their deacons no other office but this, to have the charge of (331) the paten and chalice. Surely we need no disputation to prove that they agree in no point with the apostles. But if the readers be desirous to see any more concerning this point, they may repair unto our Institution, chapter 8. As touching this present place, the Church is permitted to choose. For it is tyrannous if any one man appoint or make ministers at his pleasure. (332) Therefore, this is the (most) lawful way, that those be chosen by common voices (333) who are to take upon them (334) any public function in the Church. And the apostles prescribe what manner [of] persons ought to be chosen, to wit, men of tried honesty and credit, (335) men endued with wisdom (336) and other gifts of the Spirit. And this is the mean between tyranny and confused liberty, (337) that nothing be done without (338) the consent and approbation of the people, yet so that the pastors moderate and govern (this action, (339)) that their authority may be as a bridle to keep under the people, (340) lest they pass their bounds too much. In the mean season, this is worth the noting, that the apostles prescribe an order unto the faithful, lest they appoint any save those which are fit. For we do God no small injury if we take all that come to hand (341) to govern his house. Therefore, we must use great circumspection that we choose none (342) unto the holy function of the Church unless we have some trial of him first. The number of seven is applied (343) unto the present necessity, lest any man should think (344) that there is some mystery comprehended under the same. Whereas Luke saith, full of the Spirit and wisdom, I do interpret it thus, that it is requisite that they be furnished both with other gifts of the Spirit, and also with wisdom, (345) without which that function cannot be exercised well, both that they may beware of the leger-demain (346) of those men, who being too much given unto begging, require (347) that which is necessary for the poverty of the brethren, and also of their slanders, who cease not to backbite, though they have none occasion given them. For that function is not only painful, but also subject to many ungodly murmurings.

COFFMA, "The traditional deductions from this episode, namely, (1) that the men here appointed were installed in the office of deacon, and (2) that the work of deacons is restricted to the church's "business" affairs, are by no means necessary. McGarvey was sure that "The deacon's office was here first created and supplied with incumbents";[7] and "That no ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of church officers."[8] However, the Seven were not "elected" at all; they were "appointed" by the apostles. Therefore, to the extent of this episode's application to "church officers," it is the right of nominating elders and deacons which is vested in the congregation, rather than the right of election or appointment of such officers. Despite this, the question is somewhat academic, because neither apostles nor elders can rule any congregation without taking into account the considered judgment of its membership.

[7] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 107.

[8] Ibid., p. 104.

ELLICOTT, "(3) Seven men of honest report.—The number may have had its origin in the general reverence for the number Seven among the Jews. Possibly, however, the suggestion may have come from the Libertini, or Hellenistæ of Rome, where there was a distinct guild, or Collegium, known as the Septemviri Epulones, or Seven Stewards (Lucan. i. 602), whose business it was to arrange for the banquets held in honour of the gods, which were more or less analogous to the Christian agapœ, on certain set days. (See Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Art. “Epulones.” It is an interesting coincidence that they, too, had been appointed to relieve the Pontifices from a duty which they found too heavy. This view falls in with the inference as to the Roman origin of Stephen which will be found in the otes on Acts 6:5.

Full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.—The Apostles, it is clear, did not limit their thoughts of the Spirit’s working to prophecy and the gift of tongues. Wherever wisdom, and charity, and kindness were requisite, there was need of a supernatural grace, raising men above prejudice and passion. Of these qualities, no less than of the good report, the whole body of believers were to be, in the first instance, the judges, the Apostles reserving to themselves the right of final appointment, and therefore, if necessary, of a veto. It is significant that the word “wisdom” only appears in the Acts in connection with Stephen (here and in Acts 6:10, and in the report of his speech Acts 7:10; Acts 7:22). We may, perhaps, think of James, the brother of the Lord, as led by what he now saw and heard to that prayerful seeking after wisdom which is so prominent in his Epistle (James 1:5; James 3:13-17).

PETT, "“Look you out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”

So they put forward the practical solution that seven suitably qualified people be selected from among their number to act as administrators, taking charge of the practical distribution of alms among the Hellenists while they themselves concentrated on preaching the word. (The system which was working well among the Hebraic believers could carry on as before). All that was necessary was that they be men of outstanding reputation, and full of wisdom in the power of the Holy Spirit.

It seemed a good and practical solution, and was quite probably decided on the basis of Jewish practise. It revealed their general naivety in that it demonstrated their limited vision. They had no idea when they did it what an avalanche they were unleashing. For God had other plans for the extending of His work, and this was the means by which He was bringing them about. He would not limit the seven to serving tables.

WHEDO, "3. Look ye out—The laity were to look the seven men out, and the laity concurred (the saying pleased them) and chose the men. It is thus the business of the

Church in all ages to provide for itself a ministry. Though the ministry does at first call, and so in a sense create the Church, yet normally in turn the Church creates its ministry. It must search, find, bring out, and perform its part in choosing them.

We may appoint— κατατησοµεν, may make-stand, may station or establish. The electing by the laity did not make the officer without the appointing by the apostles. Both must, and, animated by one spirit, would spontaneously concur.

Seven—Doubtless this number, like that of the twelve, had a symbolic character, as we have illustrated in our notes on the Sacred umbers in our second volume. So the Jews, according to Maimonides as quoted by Dr. Gill, had seven good men of the city as a kind of trustees of the synagogues. Some suppose, without much reason, that the Jerusalem Church was divided into sections worshipping in seven different houses, with a deacon to each. Dr. Clarke supposes, with more reasonable probability, that one deacon served in turn on each of the seven days of the week. A symbolical and a real reason could easily coincide in a given case. It is a curious instance of the service of the letter that the Church in Rome scrupulously limited its deacons to seven even while its elders amounted to forty.

Honest report—Honourable reputation.

Holy Ghost… wisdom— The high qualifications of the deacons implied that even they were not to be limited to a mere manual service. To feed the poor and tend the sick in a Christian way require service to the soul as well as body. In point of fact we find that of two of the seven preaching was largely the providential duty. For this their official character was an authorization.

PULPIT, "Look ye out therefore, brethren, from for wherefore, brethren, look ye out, A.V.; good for honest, A.V.; Spirit for Holy Ghost, A.V. and T.R.; of wisdom for wisdom, A.V. Good report; literally, borne witness to; i.e. well spoken of. So in Hebrews 11:5 it is said of Enoch that "he had witness borne to him that he pleased God," and in Hebrews 11:4 of Abel that "he had witness borne to him that he was righteous;" and so in Acts 10:22 Cornelius is said to be a man "well reported of by all the nation of the Jews." In Acts 16:2 Timothy is said to be "well reported of ( ἐµαρτυρεῖτο) by the brethren." The Spirit. The number seven was, perhaps, fixed upon with reference to the exigencies of the service, some think because there were seven tables to be supplied; and partly perhaps from seven being the sacred number, the number of completeness—seven Churches, seven spirits, seven stars, seven children (1 Samuel 2:5), seven times (Psalms 119:164). From seven having been the number of the first deacons arose the custom in some Churches of always having seven deacons, which continued some centuries in the Church of Rome. One of the Canons of the Council of eo-caesarea enacted that "there ought to be but seven deacons in any city," and St. Mark is said to have ordained seven deacons at Alexandria. But the needs of the Churches gradually superseded all such restrictions. Whom we may appoint. The multitude elect, the apostles appoint. The apostolate appears as the sole ministry of the Church at first. From the apostolate is

evolved first the diaconate, afterwards the presbyterate, as the need for each arose (Acts 14:23).

MACLARE, "FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT

Act_6:3, Act_6:5, Act_6:8

I have taken the liberty of wrenching these three fragments from their context, because of their remarkable parallelism, which is evidently intended to set us thinking of the connection of the various characteristics which they set forth. The first of them is a description, given by the Apostles, of the sort of man whom they conceived to be fit to look after the very homely matter of stifling the discontent of some members of the Church, who thought that their poor people did not get their fair share of the daily ministration. The second and third of them are parts of the description of the foremost of these seven men, the martyr Stephen. In regard to the first and second of our three fragmentary texts, you will observe that the cause is put first and the effect second. The ‘deacons’ were to be men ‘full of the Holy Ghost,’ and that would make them ‘full of wisdom.’ Stephen was ‘full of faith,’ and that made him ‘full of the Holy Ghost.’ Probably the same relation subsists in the third of our texts, of which the true reading is not, as it appears in our Authorised Version, ‘full of faith and power,’ but as it is given in the Revised Version, ‘full of grace and power.’ He was filled with grace-by which apparently is here meant the sum of the divine spiritual gifts-and therefore he was full of power. Whether that is so or not, if we link these three passages together, as I have taken the liberty of doing, we get a point of view appropriate for such a day [Footnote: Preached on Whit Sunday.] as this, when all that calls itself Christendom is commemorating the descent of the Holy Spirit, and His abiding influence upon the Church. So I simply wish to gather together the principles that come out of these three verses thus concatenated.

I. We may all, if we will, be full of the Holy Spirit.

If there is a God at all, there is nothing more reasonable than to suppose that He can come into direct contact with the spirits of the men whom He has made. And if that Almighty God is not an Almighty indifference, or a pure devil-if He is love-then there is nothing more certain than that, if He can touch and influence men’s hearts towards goodness and His own likeness, He most certainly will.

The probability, which all religion recognises, and in often crude forms tries to set forth, and by superstitious acts to secure, is raised to an absolute certainty, if we believe that Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Truth, speaks truth to us about this matter. For there is nothing more certain than that the characteristic which distinguishes Him from all other teachers, is to be found not only in the fact that He did something for us on the Cross, as well as taught us by His word; but that in His teaching He puts in the forefront, not the prescriptions of our duty, but the promise of God’s gift; and ever says to us, ‘Open your hearts and the divine influences will flow in and fill you and fit you for all goodness.’ The Spirit of God fills the human spirit, as the mysterious influence which we call life permeates and animates the whole body, or as water lies in a cup.

Consider how that metaphor is caught up, and from a different point of view is confirmed, in regard to the completeness which it predicates, by other metaphors of Scripture. What is the meaning of the Baptist’s saying, ‘He shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost and fire’? Does that not mean a complete immersion in, and submersion under, the cleansing flood? What is the meaning of the Master’s own saying, ‘Tarry ye. . . till ye be clothed with power from on high’? Does not that mean complete investiture of our

nakedness with that heavenly-woven robe? Do not all these emblems declare to us the possibility of a human spirit being charged to the limits of its capacity with a divine influence?

We do not here discuss questions which separate good Christian people from one another in regard of this matter. My object now is not to lay down theological propositions, but to urge upon Christian men the acquirement of an experience which is possible for them. And so, without caring to enter by argument on controversial matters, I desire simply to lay emphasis upon the plain implication of that word, ‘filled with the Holy Ghost.’ Does it mean less than the complete subjugation of a man’s spirit by the influence of God’s Spirit brooding upon him, as the prophet laid himself on the dead child, lip to lip, face to face, beating heart to still heart, limb to limb, and so diffused a supernatural life into the dead? That is an emblem of what all you Christian people may have if you like, and if you will adopt the discipline and observe the conditions which God has plainly laid down.

That fulness will be a growing fulness, for our spirits are capable, if not of infinite, at any rate of indefinite, expansion, and there is no limit known to us, and no limit, I suppose, which will ever be reached, so that we can go no further-to the possible growth of a created spirit that is in touch with God, and is having itself enlarged and elevated and ennobled by that contact. The vessel is elastic, the walls of the cup of our spirit, into which the new wine of the divine Spirit is poured, widen out as the draught is poured into them. The more a man possesses and uses of the life of God, the more is he capable of possessing and the more he will receive. So a continuous expansion in capacity, and a continuous increase in the amount of the divine life possessed, are held out as the happy prerogative and possibility of a Christian soul.

This Stephen had but a very small amount of the clear Christian knowledge that you and I have, but he was leagues ahead of most Christian people in regard to this, that he was ‘filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Brethren, you can have as much of that Spirit as you want. It is my own fault if my Christian life is not what the Christian lives of some of us, I doubt not, are. ‘Filled with the Holy Spirit’! rather a little drop in the bottom of the cup, and all the rest gaping emptiness; rather the fire died down, Pentecostal fire though it be, until there is scarcely anything but a heap of black cinders and grey ashes in your grate, and a little sandwich of flickering flame in one corner; rather the rushing mighty wind died down into all but a dead calm, like that which afflicts sailing-ships in the equatorial regions, when the thick air is deadly still, and the empty sails have not strength even to flap upon the masts; rather the ‘river of the water of life’ that pours ‘out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb,’ dried up into a driblet.

That is the condition of many Christian people. I say not of which of us. Let each man settle for himself how that may be. At all events here is the possibility, which may be realised with increasing completeness all through a Christian man’s life. We may be filled with the Holy Spirit.

II. If we are ‘full of faith’ we shall be filled with the Spirit.

That is the condition as suggested by one of our texts-’a man full of faith,’ and therefore ‘of the Holy Ghost.’ Now, of course, I believe, as I suppose all people who have made any experience of their own hearts must believe, that before a soul exercises confidence in Jesus Christ, and passes into the household of faith, there have been playing upon it the influences of that divine Comforter whose first mission is to ‘convince the world of sin.’ But between such operations as these, which I believe are universally diffused, wheresoever the Word of God and the message of salvation are proclaimed-between

such operations as these, and those to which I now refer, whereby the divine Spirit not only operates upon, but dwells in, a man’s heart, and not only brings conviction to the world of sin, there is a wide gulf fixed; and for all the hallowing, sanctifying, illuminating and strength-giving operations of that divine Spirit, the pre-requisite condition is our trust. Jesus Christ taught us so, in more than one utterance, and His Apostle, in commenting on one of the most remarkable of His sayings on this subject, says, ‘This spake He concerning the Holy Spirit which they that believed in Him were to receive.’ Faith is the condition of receiving that divine influence. But what kind of faith? Well, let us put away theological words. If you do not believe that there is any such influence to be got, you will not get it. If you do not want it, you will not get it. If you do not expect it, you will not get it. If professing to believe it, and to wish it, and to look for it, you are behaving yourself in such a way as to show that you do not really desire it, you will never get it. It is all very well to talk about faith as the condition of receiving that divine Spirit. Do not let us lose ourselves in the word, but try to translate the somewhat threadbare expression, which by reason of its familiarity produces little effect upon some of us, and to turn it into non-theological English. It just comes to this,-if we are simply trusting ourselves to Jesus Christ our Lord, and if in that trust we do believe in the possibility of even our being filled with the divine Spirit, and if that possibility lights up a leaping flame of desire in our hearts which aspires towards the possession of such a gift, and if belief that our reception of that gift is possible because we trust ourselves to Jesus Christ, and longing that we may receive it, combine to produce the confident expectation that we shall, and if all of these combine to produce conduct which neither quenches nor grieves that divine Guest, then, and only then, shall we indeed be filled with the Spirit.

I know of no other way by which a man can receive God into his heart than by opening his heart for God to come in. I know of no other way by which a man can woo-if I may so say-the Divine Lover to enter into his spirit than by longing that He would come, waiting for His coming, expecting it, and being supremely blessed in the thought that such a union is possible. Faith, that is trust, with its appropriate and necessary sequels of desire and expectation and obedience, is the completing of the electric circuit, and after it the spark is sure to come. It is the opening of the windows, after which sunshine cannot but flood the chamber. It is the stretching out of the hand, and no man that ever, with love and longing, lifted an empty hand to God, dropped it still empty. And no man who, with penitence for his own act, and trust in the divine act, lifted blood-stained and foul hands to God, ever held them up there without the gory patches melting away, and becoming white as snow. Not ‘all the perfumes of Araby’ can sweeten those bloody hands. Lift them up to God, and they become pure. Whosoever wishes that he may, and believes that he shall, receive from Christ the fulness of the Spirit, will not be disappointed. Brethren, ‘Ye have not because ye ask not.’ ‘If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,’ shall not ‘your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?’

III. Lastly, if we are filled with the Spirit we shall be ‘full of wisdom, grace, and power.’

The Apostles seemed to think that it was a very important business to look after a handful of poor widows, and see that they had their fair share in the dispensing of the modest charity of the half-pauper Jerusalem church, when they said that for such a purely secular thing as that a man would need to be ‘full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.’ Surely, something a little less august might have served their turn to qualify men for such a task! ‘Wisdom’ here, I suppose, means practical sagacity, common sense, the power of picking out an impostor when she came whining for a dole. Very commonplace virtues! -but the Apostles evidently thought that such everyday operations of the understanding as these were not too secular and commonplace to owe their origin to the

communication to men of the fulness of the Holy Spirit.

May we not take a lesson from that, that God’s great influences, when they come into a man, do not concern themselves only with great intellectual problems and the like, but that they will operate to make him more fit to do the most secular and the most trivial things that can be put into his hand to do? The Holy Ghost had to fill Stephen before he could hand out loaves and money to the widows in Jerusalem.

And do you not think that your day’s work, and your business perplexities, come under the same category? Perhaps the best way to secure understanding of what we ought to do, in regard to very small and secular matters, is to keep ourselves very near to God, with the windows of our hearts opened towards Jerusalem, that all the guidance and light that can come from Him may come into us. Depend upon it, unless we have God’s guidance in the trivialities of life, ninety per cent., ay! and more, of our lives will be without God’s guidance; because trivialities make up life. And unless my Father in heaven can guide me about what we, very mistakenly, call ‘secular’ things, and what we very vulgarly call trivial things, His guidance is not worth much. The Holy Ghost will give you wisdom for to-morrow, and all its little cares, as well as for the higher things, of which I am not going to speak now, because they do not come within my text.

‘Full of grace,’-that is a wide word, as I take it. If, by our faith, we have brought into our hearts that divine influence, the Spirit of God does not come empty-handed, but He communicates to us whatsoever things are lovely and of good report, whatsoever things are fair and honourable, whatsoever things in the eyes of men are worthy to be praised, and by the tongues of men have been called virtue. These things will all be given to us step by step, not without our own diligent co-operation, by that divine Giver. Effort without faith, and faith without effort, are equally incomplete, and the co-operation of the two is that which is blessed by God.

Then the things which are ‘gracious,’ that is to say, given by His love, and also gracious in the sense of partaking of the celestial beauty which belongs to all virtue, and to all likeness in character to God, these things will give us a strange, supernatural poweramongst men. The word is employed in my third text, I presume, in its narrow sense of miracle-working power, but we may fairly widen it to something much more than that. Our Lord once said, when He was speaking about the gift of the Holy Spirit, that there were two stages in its operation. In the first, it availed for the refreshment and the satisfying of the desires of the individual; in the second it became, by the ministration of that individual, a source of blessing to others. He said, ‘If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink,’ and then, immediately, ‘He that believeth on Me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.’ That is to say, whoever lives in touch with God, having that divine Spirit in his heart, will walk amongst men the wielder of an unmistakable power, and will be able to bear witness to God, and move men’s hearts, and draw them to goodness and truth. The only power for Christian service is the power that comes from being clothed with God’s Spirit. The only power for self-government is the power that comes from being clothed with God’s Spirit. The only power which will keep us in the way that leads to life, and will bring us at last to the rest and the reward, is the power that comes from being clothed with God’s Spirit.

I am charged to all who hear me now with this message. Here is a gift offered to you. You cannot pare and batter at your own characters so as to make them what will satisfy your own consciences, still less what will satisfy the just judgment of God; but you can put yourself under the moulding influences of Christ’s love. Dear brethren, the one hope for dead humanity, the bones very many and very dry, is that from the four winds there should come the breath of God, and breathe in them, and they shall live, ‘an exceeding

great army.’ Forget all else that I have been saying now, if you like, but take these two sentences to your hearts, and do not rest till they express your own personal experience; If I am to be good I must have God’s Spirit within me. If I am to have God’s Spirit within me, I must be ‘full of faith.’

4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

BARES, "But we will give ourselves continually - The original expression used here denotes “intense and persevering” application to a thing, or unwearied effort in it. See the notes on Act_1:14. It means that the apostles designed to make this their constant and main object, undistracted by the cares of life, and even by attention to the temporal needs of the church.

To prayer -Whether this means “private” or “public” prayer cannot be certainly determined. The passage, however, would rather incline us to suppose that the “latter” was meant, as it is immediately connected with preaching. If so, then the phrase denotes that they would give themselves to the duties of their office, one part of which was public prayer, and another preaching. Still it is to be believed that the apostles felt the need of secret prayer, and practiced it, as preparatory to their public preaching.

And to the ministry of the word - To preaching the gospel, or communicating the

message of eternal life to the world. The word “ministry” διακονία diakonia properly denotes the employment of a “servant,” and is given to the preachers of the gospel because they are employed in this as the “servants” of God and of the church. We have here a view of what the apostles thought to be the proper work of the ministry. They were set apart to this work. It was their main, their only employment. To this their lives were to be devoted, and both by their example and their writings they have shown that it was on this principle they acted. Compare 1Ti_4:15-16; 2Ti_4:2. It follows also that if their time and talents were to be wholly devoted to this work, it was reasonable that they should receive competent support from the churches, and this reasonable claim is often urged. See the 1Co_9:7-14 notes; Gal_6:6 note.

CLARKE, "We will give ourselves continually to prayer - Προσκαρτερησοµεν, We will steadfastly and invariably attend, we will carefully keep our hearts to this work.

The word is very emphatic.

To prayer. - See this defined, Mat_6:5 (note). Even apostles could not live without prayer; they had no independent graces; what they had could not be retained without an increase; and for this increase they must make prayer and supplication, depending continually on their God.

Ministry of the word - ∆ιακονι;�του�λογου, The deaconship of the word. The continual proclamation of the Gospel of their Lord; and, to make this effectual to the souls of the hearers, they must continue in prayer: a minister who does not pray much, studies in vain.

The office of deacon, διακονος, came to the Christian from the Jewish Church. Every

synagogue had at least three deacons, which were called פרנסים parnasim, from פרנס

parnes, to feed, nourish, support, govern. The פרנס parnas, or deacon, was a sort of judge in the synagogue; and, in each, doctrine and wisdom were required, that they might be

able to discern and give right judgment in things both sacred and civil. The חזן chazan,

and שמש shamash, were also a sort of deacons. The first was the priest’s deputy; and the last was, in some cases, the deputy of this deputy, or the sub-deacon. In the New Testament the apostles are called deacons, 2Co_6:4; Eph_3:7; Col_1:23 : see also 2Co_11:15. Christ himself, the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, is called the deacon of the

circumcision, λεγω�δε�Χριστον�Ιησουν�διακονον�γεγενησθαι�περιτοµης, Rom_15:8. As the word implies to minister or serve, it was variously applied, and pointed out all those who were employed in helping the bodies or souls of men; whether apostles, bishops, or those whom we call deacons. Some remark that there were two orders of deacons:

1. ∆ιακονοι�της�τραπιζης, deacons of the Table, whose business it was to take care of the alms collected in the Church, and distribute them among the poor, widows, etc.

2. ∆ιακονοι�του�λογου, deacons of the Word, whose business it was to preach, and variously instruct the people. It seems that after the persecution raised against the apostolic Church, in consequence of which they became dispersed, the deaconship of tables ceased, as did also the community of goods; and Philip, who was one of these deacons, who at first served tables, betook himself entirely to preaching of the word: see Act_8:4, etc.

In the primitive Church, it is sufficiently evident that the deacons gave the bread and wine in the Eucharist to the believers in the Church, and carried it to those who were absent, Just. Mar. Apol. ii. p. 162; they also preached, and in some cases administered

baptism. See Suicer on the words ∆ιακονος,�Κηρυσσω, and Βαπτισµα. But it appears they did the two last by the special authority of the bishop. In the ancient Roman Church, and in the Romish Church, the number of seven deacons, in imitation of those appointed by the apostles, was kept up; and in the council of Neocaesarea it was decreed that this number should never be exceeded, even in the largest cities: vide Concil. Neocaesar. Canon. xiv. other Churches varied this number; and the Church of Constantinople had not less than one hundred. Deacons were ordained by the bishops, by imposition of hands. None was ordained deacon till he was twenty-five years of age, and we find that it

was lawful for them to have wives. See Suicer under the word ∆ιακονος, and see the note

on Mat_20:26.

In the Church of England, (the purest and nearest to the apostolical model in doctrine and discipline of all national Churches), a deacon receives ordination by the imposition of the hands of a bishop, in consequence of which he can preach, assist in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and in general perform any sacred office, except consecrating the elements, and pronouncing the absolution. No person in this Church can be ordained deacon till he be twenty-three years of age, unless by dispensation from the Abp. of Canterbury. There were deaconesses, both in the apostolic and primitive Church, who had principally the care of the women, and visited and ministered to them in those circumstances in which it would have been improper for a deacon to attend. They also assisted in preparing the female candidates for baptism.

At present, the office for which the seven deacons were appointed is, in the Church of England, filled by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor; in other Churches and religious societies, by elders, stewards, etc., chosen by the people, and appointed by the minister.

GILL, "But we will give ourselves continually to prayer,.... Both in private for themselves, and the church; and in the houses and families of the saints, with the sick and distressed;. and in public, in the temple, or in whatsoever place they met for public worship:

and to the ministry of the word; the preaching of the Gospel, to which prayer is absolutely prerequisite, and with which it is always to be joined. These two, prayer and preaching, are the principal employment of a Gospel minister, and are what he ought to be concerned in, not only now and then, but what he should give himself up unto wholly, that his profiting might appear; and what he should be continually exercised and employed in: and if parting with that branch of the ministerial function, the care of the secular affairs of the church, and of the poor of it, was necessary in the apostles, that they might be more at leisure to attend to the more important and useful duties of prayer and preaching; it therefore seems necessary that those who are called to labour in the word and doctrine, if possible, should be exempt from all worldly business and employment; that of the ministry being sufficient to engross all a man's time and thoughts.

HERY, "The apostles engage to addict themselves wholly to their work as ministers, and the more closely if they can but get fairly quit of this troublesome office (Act_6:4): We will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. See here, [1.] What are the two great gospel ordinances - the word, and prayer; by these two communion between God and his people is kept up and maintained; by the word he speaks to them, and by prayer they speak to him; and these have a mutual reference to each other. By these two the kingdom of Christ must be advanced, and additions made to it; we must prophesy upon the dry bones, and then pray for a spirit of life from God to enter into them. By the word and prayer other ordinances are sanctified to us, and sacraments have their efficacy. [2.] What is the great business of gospel ministers - to give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word; they must still be either fitting and furnishing themselves for those services, or employing themselves in them; either publicly or privately; in the stated times, or out of them. They must be God's mouth to the people in the ministry of the word, and the people's mouth to God in prayer. In order to the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the edification and consolation of saints, we must not only offer up our prayers for them, but we must

minister the word to them, seconding our prayers with our endeavours, in the use of appointed means. Nor must we only minister the word to them, but we must pray for them, that it may be effectual; for God's grace can do all without our preaching, but our preaching can do nothing without God's grace. The apostles were endued with extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, tongues and miracles; and yet that to which they gave themselves continually was preaching and praying, by which they might edify the church: and those ministers, without doubt, are the successors of the apostles (not in the plenitude of the apostolical power - those are daring usurpers who pretend to this, but in the best and most excellent of the apostolical works) who give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word; and such Christ will always be with, even to the end of the world.

JAMISO, "we will give ourselves to prayer— public prayer, as along with preaching their great work.

CALVI, "4.And we will give ourselves unto prayer. They show again that they have too much business otherwise, wherein they may exercise themselves during their whole life. For the old proverb agreeth hereunto very fitly, which was used sometimes in the solemn rites, do this. Therefore, they use the word [ προσκαρτερησαι ] which signifieth to be, as it were, fastened and tied to anything. Therefore, pastors must not think that they have so done their duty that they need to do no more when they have daily spent some time in teaching. There is another manner of study, another manner of zeal, another manner of continuance (349) required, that they may (350) indeed boast that they are wholly given to that thing. They adjoin thereunto prayer, not that they alone ought to pray, (for that is an exercise common to all the godly,) but because they have peculiar causes to pray above all others. There is no man which ought not to be careful for the common salvation of the Church. How much more, then, ought the pastor, who hath that function enjoined him by name to labor carefully [anxiously] for it? So Moses did indeed exhort others unto prayer, but he went before them as the ringleader (351) (Exodus 17:11.) And it is not without cause that Paul doth so often make mention of his prayers, (Romans 1:10.) Again, we must always remember that, that we shall lose all our labor bestowed upon plowing, sowing, and watering, unless the increase come from heaven, (1 Corinthians 3:7.) Therefore, it shall not suffice to take great pains in teaching, unless we require the blessing at the hands of the Lord, that our labor may not be in vain and unfruitful. Hereby it appeareth that the exercise of prayer (352) is not in vain commended unto the ministers of the word.

COFFMA, "Continue stedfastly ... What the apostles here proposed was to "continue" as they had already been doing, namely, devoting their total resources to the propagation of the truth. This verse denies the supposition that, until this time, the apostles had been doing all of the distributing of food to the needy. See under Acts 6:2.

The ministry of the word ... othing is any plainer in the ew Testament than the priority of the word and doctrine of Christ over every other consideration, even that

of taking care of the poor. either area of responsibility is to be neglected; but the first duty is that of ministering the word itself.

ELLICOTT, "4) We will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.—Literally, We will persevere in . . . These formed the true work of the Apostles, as afterwards of the bishops or elders of the Church. “Prayer” includes the public worship of the Church in all its various developments, as well as private prayer and intercession; the “ministry of the word,” all forms of teaching.

It is to be noted that the men thus appointed are never called “deacons” in the ew Testament. When they are referred to again it is as “the Seven” (Acts 21:8), as though they were a distinct and peculiar body. Their functions were, of course, in some degree, analogous to those of the “deacons” of the Pastoral Epistles and the later organisation of the Church; but these, as we have seen, had their prototypes in the “young men,” as contrasted with “elders,” in Acts 5:6; Acts 5:10; and the Seven were probably appointed, so to speak, as archdeacons, to superintend and guide them. In some churches, as at Rome, the number of deacons was fixed at seven, in conformity with this precedent (so also at the Council of eo-Cæsarea, Can. 14, A.D. 314), and they were considered, when the bishop came to be distinguished from the elders, as acting more immediately under the direction of the former, helping him in the details of his office.

PETT, “But we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.”

The administrative problems being sorted out, they hoped satisfactorily, the Apostles themselves would then concentrate on prayer and the ministry of the word. The new appointees would be administrative ‘ministers’ (deacons) and the Apostles would be ‘deacons’ of the word. We should not see here , except possibly in embryo form, a deliberate distinction between ‘deacons’ and non-deacons. It was simply a practical division of responsibilities, with all ‘serving’ (deaconing) together, while recognising the special responsibility of the Apostles.

WHEDO, "4. Give ourselves… continually— προσκαρτερησοµεν. We will persevere in, or continue in; constantly, yet not exclusively. Their spiritual office exempted them from official attention to temporal charities, but was no cessation from spontaneous alms. As Christ was, at first, divine Apostle, (Hebrews 3:1,) and contained within himself all authority, so his apostles were the source whence all church-official grades are derived. As Dr. Schaff well says, (“Apostolic History,” 499:) The higher (the apostolate) “includes the lower, not the reverse.” “The apostles were at the same time prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, and at first had charge even of the business of the deacons, Acts 4:35; Acts 4:37; Acts 6:2.” What was peculiar to the apostles alone left the earth with them; but all other ministries are carved out of what was transmissible in them, and all true ministers are successors of the apostles.

Prayer… ministry of the word— These every minister inherits as his blessed perquisite and privilege from the apostles. In the divine establishment of the Church

the “ministry of the word” is a permanent institution. “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” is the command, followed by the promise of Christ’s presence “until the end of the world.” So that preaching and preacher stand while the world stands. It is by the foolishness of preaching the world is to be saved. And such a preacher is divinely “called” to his work. That call by the moving of the Holy Ghost is manifested to his own soul by an impressive sense of duty, an assuring testimony to the soul from God upon prayerful inquiry, and a deep love and attraction for the blessed work of gaining souls for Christ and heaven. Without such a “call” no man should ever enter the ministry of reconciliation.

We do not say that a man may not, by the same Spirit and in a similar way be “called” to some other “calling,” as to be a physician or a mechanic. Did men consult the divine will in a profounder spirit of devotion the divine “call” would be oftener recognized. But if the call and the Spirit may be much the same, the destination to which the call directs is profoundly different. Medicine is not a spiritual institution; it has not the direct notice of revelation; it forms no part of a divinely established Church; and the divine call directs a man to it as to a secularity. But the minister is divinely called to a divinely constituted work, office, responsibility, danger, and dignity. And we may add that such a call may be outlived and forfeited. Many a minister gives evidence, by the loss of the true spirit of a minister, that he has lost his call as a minister.

5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, icanor, Timon, Parmenas, and icolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

BARES, "And the saying - “The word” - the counsel, or command,

And they chose Stephen ... - A man who soon showed Acts 7 that he was in every way qualified for his office, and also suited to defend the cause of the Lord Jesus. This man had the distinguished honor of being the first Christian martyr.

And Nicolas - From this man some of the fathers (Iren., lib. 1:27; Epiphanius, 1; Haeres., 5) says that the sect of the “Nicolaitanes,” mentioned with so much disapprobation Rev_2:6, Rev_2:15, took their rise. But the evidence of this is not clear.

A proselyte - A “proselyte” is one who is converted from one religion to another. See the notes on Mat_23:15. The word does not mean here that he was a convert to

“Christianity” - which was true - but that he had been converted at Antioch from paganism to the Jewish religion. As this is the only proselyte mentioned among the seven deacons, it is evident that the others were native-born Jews, though a part of them might have been born out of Palestine, and have been of the denomination of “Grecians,” or “Hellenists.”

Of Antioch - This city, often mentioned in the New Testament (Act_11:19-20, Act_11:26; Act_15:22, Act_15:35; Gal_2:11, etc.), was situated in Syria, on the river Orontes, and was formerly called “Riblath.” It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but is frequently mentioned in the Apocrypha. It was built by Seleucus Nicanor, b.c. 301, and was named “Antioch,” in honor of his father Antiochus. It became the seat of empire of the Syrian kings of the Macedonian race, and afterward of the Roman governors of the eastern provinces. In this place the disciples of Christ were first called “Christians,” Act_11:26. Josephus says it was the third city in size of the Roman provinces, being inferior only to Seleucia and Alexandria. It was long, indeed, the most powerful city of the East. The city was almost square, had many gates, was adorned with fine fountains, and possessed great fertility of soil and commercial opulence. It was subject to earthquakes, and was often almost destroyed by them. In 588 a.d. above 60,000 persons perished in it in this manner. In 970 a.d. an army of 100,000 Saracens besieged it, and took it. In 1268 a.d. it was taken possession of by the Sultan of Egypt, who demolished it, and placed it under the dominion of the Turks. It is now called “Antakia,” and until the year 1822 it occupied a remote corner of the ancient enclosure of its walls, its splendid buildings being reduced to hovels, and its population living in Turkish debasement. It contains now about 10,000 inhabitants (Robinson’s Calmet). This city should be distinguished from Antioch in Pisidia, also mentioned in the New Testament, Act_13:14.

CLARKE, "Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost - A person every way properly fitted for his work; and thus qualified to be the first martyr of the Christian Church.

Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch - A heathen Greek, who had not only believed in the God of Israel, but had also received circumcision, and consequently was a proselyte of the covenant; for, had he been only a proselyte of the gate, the Jews could not have associated with him. On the word proselyte, see the note on Exo_12:43. As this is the only proselyte mentioned here, we may presume that all the rest were native Jews. From this Nicolas, it is supposed that the sect called Nicolaitans, mentioned Rev_2:6, Rev_2:15, derived their origin. Dr. Lightfoot doubts this, and rather inclines to derive the

name “from ניכולא nicola, let us eat together; those brutes encouraging each other to eat meats offered to idols, like those in Isa_22:13, who said, Let us eat flesh and drink wine, etc.” Both Irenaeus and Epiphanius derive this sect from Nicolas the deacon. Clemens Alexandrinus gives this Nicolas a good character, even while he allows that the sect who taught the community of wives pretended to derive their origin from him. See on Rev_2:6 (note).

GILL, "And the saying pleased the whole multitude,.... The speech the apostles made took with them; all things they proposed were universally approved of; the whole body of the church came into it at once unanimously; they all judged it highly reasonable, that the apostles should be eased of the burden in taking care of the poor, and that it should be transferred to some other persons, and they fixed on the following:

and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost; he was a man eminent for his faith in Christ, and his faithfulness to him, and in everything he was concerned, and for his courage and boldness in the cause of Christ and for other gifts and graces of the Spirit, with which he was filled; he was, it is very likely, the most eminent person of all the seven, and is therefore named first; he is afterwards taken notice of, and was the first that suffered martyrdom for Christ, with which he was crowned, answerable to his name, which signifies a crown:

and Philip; who was also an evangelist, and had four daughters that prophesied; and perhaps is the same that went down to Samaria, and preached Christ there with great success, and after that baptized the Ethiopian eunuch;

and Prochorus; of this and the rest, no other mention is made in the sacred writings. He is said by some to be a nephew of Stephen's, and first bishop of Nicomedia; but these are things not certain; and as for the life of the Apostle John, said to be written by him, it is a spurious and fabulous piece.

And Nicanor; of this man we have no other certain account; for that he suffered martyrdom with "Stephen" is not to be depended on. It is a Grecian name; there is one of this name who was a general in Demetrius's army, who was sent by him against the Jews,

"Then the king sent Nicanor, one of his honourable princes, a man that bare deadly hate unto Israel, with commandment to destroy the people.'' (1Mac 7:26)

and there was a gate of the temple, which was called the gate, of Nicanor:

and Timon; he is said to be afterwards bishop of Bersea; though others make him bishop, of Bostra; but with what truth cannot be asserted:

and Parmenus; of him no other account is given, than in the Roman martyrology, which is not to be depended upon, that he suffered martyrdom under Trajan:

and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; who was first a Greek or Gentile, and then became a Jew, a proselyte of righteousness, and then a Christian, and now made a deacon. Some think, that from this man sprung the sect of the Nicolaitanes, spoken of in the Revelations; though others think, that that wicked set of men only covered themselves with his name, or that they abused some words of his, and perverted the right meaning of them; though was it certain he did turn out a wicked man, it is not to be wondered at, that since there was a devil among the twelve apostles, there should be a hypocrite and a vicious man among the first seven deacons. It is observable, that the names of all these deacons are Greek names; from whence, it seems, that they were of the Grecian or Hellenistic Jews; so that the church thought fit to chose men out of that part of them which made the complaint, in order to make them easy; which is an instance of prudence and condescension, and shows of what excellent spirits they were of.

HERY, " How this proposal was agreed to, and presently put in execution, by the disciples. It was not imposed upon them by an absolute power, though they might have been bold in Christ to do this (Phm_1:8), but proposed, as that which was highly convenient, and then the saying pleased the whole multitude, Act_6:5. It pleased them

to see the apostles so willing to have themselves discharged from intermeddling in secular affairs, and to transmit them to others; it pleased them to hear that they would give themselves to the word and prayer; and therefore they neither disputed the matter nor deferred the execution of it.

(1.) They pitched upon the persons. It is not probable that they all cast their eye upon the same men. Everyone had his friend, whom he thought well of. But the majority of votes fell upon the persons here named; and the rest both of the candidates and the electors acquiesced, and made no disturbance, as the members of societies in such cases ought to do. An apostle, who was an extraordinary officer, was chosen by lot, which is more immediately the act of God; but the overseers of the poor were chosen by the suffrage of the people, in which yet a regard is to be had to the providence of God, who has all men's hearts and tongues in his hand. We have a list of the persons chosen. Some think they were such as were before of the seventy disciples; but this is not likely, for they were ordained by Christ himself, long since, to preach the gospel; and there was not more reason that they should leave the word of God to serve tables than that the apostles should. It is therefore more probable that they were of those that were converted since the pouring out of the Spirit; for it was promised to all that would be baptized that they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and the gift, according to that promise, is that fulness of the Holy Ghost which was required in those that were to be chosen to this service. We may further conjecture, concerning these seven, [1.] That they were such as had sold their estates, and brought the money into the common stock; for caeteris paribus - other things being equal, those were fittest to be entrusted with the distribution of it who had been most generous in the contribution to it. [2.] That these seven were all of the Grecian or Hellenist Jews, for they have all Greek names, and this would be most likely to silence the murmurings of the Grecians (which occasioned this institution), to have the trust lodged in those that were foreigners, like themselves, who would be sure not to neglect them. Nicolas, it is plain, was one of them, for he was a proselyte of Antioch; and some think the manner of expression intimates that they were all proselytes of Jerusalem, as he was of Antioch. The first named is Stephen, the glory of these septemviri, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost; he had a strong faith in the doctrine of Christ, and was full of it above most; full of fidelity, full of courage (so some), for he was full of the Holy Ghost, of his gifts and graces. He was an extraordinary man, and excelled in every thing that was good; his name signifies a crown. Phillip is put next, because he, having used this office of a deacon well, thereby obtained a good degree,and was afterwards ordained to the office of an evangelist, a companion and assistant to the apostles, for so he is expressly called, Act_21:8. Compare Eph_4:11. And his preaching and baptizing (which we read of Act_8:12) were certainly not as a deacon (for it is plain that that office was serving tables, in opposition to the ministry of the word), but as an evangelist; and, when he was preferred to that office, we have reason to think he quitted this office, as incompatible with that. As for Stephen, nothing we find done by him proves him to be a preacher of the gospel; for he only disputes in the schools, and pleads for his life at the bar, Act_6:9, and Act_7:2. The last named is Nicolas, who, some say, afterwards degenerated (as the Judas among these seven) and was the founder of the sect of the Nicolaitans which we read of (Rev_2:6, Rev_2:15), and which Christ there says, once and again, was a thing he hated. But some of the ancients clear him from this charge, and tell us that, though that vile impure sect denominated themselves from him, yet it was unjustly, and because he only insisted much upon it that those that had wives should be as though they had none, thence they wickedly inferred that those that had wives should have them in common, which therefore Tertullian, when he speaks of the community of goods, particularly excepts: Omnia indiscreta apud nos, praeter uxores -

All things are common among us, except our wives. - Apol. cap, 39.

JAMISO, "Stephen, etc.— As this and the following names are all Greek, it is likely they were all of the “Grecian” class, which would effectually restore mutual confidence.

HAWKER 5-7, "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: (6) Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (7) And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Reader! behold here again, what a lovely representation is made of the Church! As in the preceding verses we stood to admire the Lord’s Apostles in the department of their office, let us pause a moment now to contemplate the beautiful order of the people. The saying of the Apostles, we are told, pleased the whole multitude. And if we call to mind, how God the Holy Ghost all along, from the day of Pentecost, had been calling Christ’s redeemed ones from the darkness of nature to the light of grace; we shall find, that the Church was indeed a multitude little short of ten thousand: (see Act_1:15; Act_2:41; Act_4:4; Act_5:14,) and yet all were pleased with the Apostles’ proposal. What a delightful view it affords of the Church of Jesus! And, though it is not said, yet we may reasonably conclude, such was the love of the whole Church to the persons and labors of the Apostles, that while they were giving themselves to prayer, as well as the ministry of the word, the people were not unfrequently at prayer for them. Paul, in his days, was so sensible of the blessedness of being borne by the arms of the Church, in the prayers of the people before the mercy-seat, that he desired the brethren to pray for him, and his fellow labourers, 1Th_5:25; 2Th_3:1; Heb_13:18. And it must be in all ages of the Church a blessed thing, and more especially in times like the present, when the people lodge much prayer, and daily add to the stock before the Great Head of his Church, that the labors of his poor servants be commissioned and owned by the Lord. It hath been said, and I see no ground to doubt the truth of it, that many a minister of Christ, hath found the blessed effects of his peoples’ prayers, in the grace and abilities he hath at certain seasons received from the Lord. Certain it is, that if a Church is looking for blessings from the Lord, in the ministry of his word; it would be well to be looking at the same time, that the Lord would bless the messenger which brings them; that both minister and people may be blessed of the Lord, and send up their thanksgivings together.

The seven men here chosen by the Church, if we may judge by their names, were all taken from the Jews of Greece, for there is not one Hebrew name among them. And it may serve to shew, how much the whole body of the people were earnest, that the murmuring which arose from that quarter should have a full redress, since those who were appointed to this part of government, were all taken from their own people. Reader do not fail to observe, how the stratagems of Satan were defeated by his own weapons, since the very plan he devised to separate believers, became the means of uniting them more closely together, in forming a body of holy men, and full of the Holy Ghost, to listen to the sorrows and enquire into the wants of the Lord’s family, that they might be softened and relieved.

I do not think it necessary to detain the Reader, with dwelling on the names and characters of the seven men here chosen. Indeed, excepting the first of them, Stephen,

(and of him I shall have occasion to speak somewhat particularly, in the close of this and the following chapter,) the Holy Ghost hath recorded no more than their names. So that, where the Lord is silent, it should seem to be our wisdom to be silent, also. But I beg the Reader to notice, the method the church was pleased to adopt, for their being ordained to their office, in setting them before the Apostles, and after prayer, the Apostles laying their hands on them. And let it not be overlooked, that when the Apostles directed the Church to look out seven men from among them, they were supposed to be brethren; that is, persons regenerated by the Holy Ghost; holy brethren, as they are elsewhere called partakers of the heavenly calling, Heb_3:1. In those days, none would have been chosen into the humblest office of the ministry, who was not himself a partaker of grace, and savingly called by the Holy Ghost. For how should a dead sinner minister in the life-giving word and doctrine? Neither can any man have a feeling affection for the Church of Christ’s body, as a body, who hath never himself by regeneration, tasted that the Lord is gracious, 1Pe_2:1-5. These men, therefore, were themselves brethren, and by regeneration, made partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust, 2Pe_1:4. And yet we see, that while without this work of God the Spirit upon their souls, they would not have been qualified for the office the Apostles had directed; they were not permitted to enter upon it without prayer, and the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. See Num_27:18.

What a short, but blessed account, this passage closeth with; of the increase of the word; the multiplying the number of true believers; and what is more extraordinary, the great company of the Jewish priests, (for there were no other in those days in Jerusalem,) which joined the faithful. But what cannot the Lord the Spirit accomplish? There is a provision in the covenant which never fails, Psa_110:3; Joh_6:37; Joh_17:2. Reader! it is by the virtue and efficacy of this covenant, ordered in all things, and sure; faithful ministers of the Lord Jesus, as well as the Apostles in those early ages of the Church, labor in the word and doctrine; and like the great father of the faithful, against hope believe in hope, Rom_4:18.

CALVI, "5.Stephen, full of faith. Luke doth not, therefore, separate faith from the Spirit, as if it also were not a gift of the Spirit; but by Spirit he meaneth other gifts wherewith Stephen was endued, as zeal, wisdom, uprightness, brotherly love, diligence, integrity of a good conscience; secondly, he expresseth the principal kind. Therefore, he signifieth that Stephen did excel first in faith, and, secondly, in other virtues; so that it was evident that he had abundance of the grace of the Spirit. He doth not so greatly commend the rest, because undoubtedly they were inferior to him. Moreover, the ancient writers do, with great consent, affirm that this icholas, which was one of the seven, is the same of whom John maketh mention in the Revelation, (Revelation 2:15,) to wit, that he was an author of a filthy and wicked sect; forasmuch as he would have women to be common. For which cause we must not be negligent in choosing ministers of the Church. For if the hypocrisy of men do deceive even those which are most vigilant and careful to fake heed, what shall befall the careless and negligent? otwithstanding, if when we have used such circumspection as is meet, it so fall out that we be deceived, let us not be troubled out of measure; forasmuch as Luke saith that even the apostles were subject to this inconvenience. Some will ask this question, then, what good shall exhortation do? to what use serveth prayer, seeing that the success itself showeth that the election was not wholly governed by the Spirit of God? I answer, that this is a great matter that

the Spirit directed their judgments in choosing six men; in that he suffereth the Church to go astray in the seventh, it ought to seem no absurd thing. For it is requisite that we be thus humbled divers ways, partly that the wicked and ungodly may exercise us; partly that, being taught by their example, we may learn to examine ourselves thoroughly, lest there be in us any hidden and privy starting-corners of guile; (353) partly that we may be more circumspect to discern, and that we may, as it were, keep watch continually, lest we be deceived by crafty and unfaithful men. Also it may be that the ministry of icholas was for a time profitable, and that he fell afterward into that monstrous error. And if so be it he fell in such sort from such an honorable degree, the higher that every one of us shall be extolled, let him submit himself unto God with modesty and fear.

BESO, "Acts 6:5-6. And the saying pleased the multitude — Who had been called together upon this occasion; and — After some little deliberation upon the choice that was to be made; they chose seven — It seems all Hellenists, as their names show; a measure which accorded very well with the occasion of their election; Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost — That is, not only endowed with the ordinary graces of the Holy Spirit, in a high degree, but even with his extraordinary gifts, as appears from the subsequent verses; and Philip — Who long continued an ornament and blessing to the church, being afterward raised to a yet higher character, that of an evangelist; and icolas — Who was not a Jew born, but a proselyte of Antioch — That is, one who by circumcision had been incorporated with the Jewish people; for if he had only been what was called a proselyte of the gate, he could not at this time have been a member of the Christian Church, no uncircumcised person being yet admitted into it. As he was a proselyte, others that were proselytes would the more readily apply to him for redress in any matter of grievance; and perhaps his peculiar relation to the Grecians might be a special reason why he was chosen to this office, the disciples being willing to cut off from them all cause of complaint. Whom they set before the apostles — That is, presented to them, as persons in whom they could put confidence, and whom they wished the apostles to accept, as proper for the intended work. And when they had prayed —Supplicated the divine blessing to attend all their ministrations: they laid their hands on them — Both that they might express their solemn appointment of them to the office, and confer upon them such extraordinary gifts as would qualify them yet more abundantly for the full discharge of it.

COKE, "Acts 6:5. And they chose Stephen,— Some have thought that Stephen was one of the seventy; but it seems a precarious conjecture. The, termination of most of these names makes it probable that they were Hellenists;—a supposition which agrees very well with the occasion of their election. icolas was not a Jew born, but a proselyte of Antioch, whom they were the more willing to fix in this office, as his peculiar relation to the Grecians would make him especially careful to remedy any neglect of them which might have insensibly prevailed. Some ancient writers tell us, that he fell into great errors in the decline of life, and became the founder of the sect of the icolaitans, mentioned Revelation 6:15. But it seems much more probable, that the founder of this sect, considering how common the name was, might be some other person so called.

COFFMA, "Stephen ... is mentioned first, as Luke's narrative was about to recount his martyrdom. The qualifications that he had as a man of faith and full of the Holy Spirit were not his alone but belonged to all of the group nominated by the multitude.

Philip ... Concerning this nominee, Johnson said:

He was distinguished as "Philip the Evangelist." He gave the gospel to Samaria, converted the eunuch, and afterward lived and labored at Caesarea (Acts 21:8).[9]icolaus ... A great deal of interest attaches to this last named of the Seven. First, he is the only one designated a proselyte, and the only one whose native city is given, the latter fact calling forth this comment from Bruce:

That the only member of the Seven to have his place of origin named should belong to Antioch - Syrian Antioch, of course, is a mark of Luke's special interest in that city; and this helps to confirm the tradition that he himself was an Antiochene."[10]Two of the Ante-icene writers connected the name of icolaus with the heresy named in Revelation 2:6. Irenaeus wrote:

The icolaitanes are the followers of that icolaus who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence ... teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.[11]Of course, it is no greater wonder that one of the Seven should have proved to be unworthy than that one of the Twelve should have been a traitor. evertheless, serious doubt is cast upon Irenaeus' charge of heresy against icolaus, it being far more likely that a group of sinners pretending to be his followers adopted his name in an effort to further their evil teaching, as appears in this comment from Victorinus who wrote the first known commentary on Revelation. In his comment on Revelation 2:6, he said:

The icolaitanes were in that time false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of icolaus, had made for themselves a heresy ... etc.Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-icene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.">[12]Regarding the fact that all seven of this group had Greek names, the conclusions of scholars are contradictory. Some assume that all seven were members of the dissenting or complaining party.[13] Lange thought it probable that "some of the seven were Hebrews"[14] with Greek names; and Boles noted that some think that "three of the seven were Hebrews, three Grecians, and one a proselyte"![15] (Quite a political maneuver!) It is obvious that we simply do not know.

[9] B. W. Johnson, otes on the ew Testament (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 439.

[10] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 129.

[11] Irenaeus, Against Heresies in the Ante-icene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. I, p. 352.

Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-icene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.">[12] Victorious, Commentary on Revelation 2:6 in the Ante-icene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers), Vol. VII, p. 346.

[13] E. A. Elam, op. cit., p. 190.

[14] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1866), p. 105.

[15] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 97.

ELLICOTT, "(5) And they chose Stephen.—The seven who were chosen all bear Greek names, and it is a natural, though not a necessary, inference, that they were all of the Hellenistic section of the Church, either because that section had a majority, or because the Hebrews generously voted for giving them special representatives of their own. The order of names may represent the actual order of election, Stephen obtaining the largest number of votes, and so on. The position occupied by the new teacher is so prominent that we should welcome anything that threw light on his previous training. Unhappily we cannot advance beyond the region of uncertain tradition, or, at best, of probable inference. The coincidences, however, which suggest that inference are not without interest. (1) The name of Stephanus was not a common one, and appears in few inscriptions. Like so many of the names in Romans 16, however, it is found in those of the Columbarium, or burial-place, of the household of the Empress Livia. The man bearing it is described as a goldsmith (Aurifaber), and as immunis—i.e., exempted from the religious obligations of his trade-guild. He is a freed-man or libertinus. Circumstances, such as the bequest by Herod the Great of his gold plate to Livia (Jos. Ant. xvi. 5, § 1; xvii. 8, § 1), indicate an intimate connection between him and the Imperial Court, and make it probable that the goldsmith Stephanus was a Jew. The business was one in which then, as in later ages, Jews conspicuously excelled, and the exemption just mentioned may well have been, as it were, of the nature of a “conscience-clause” in his favour. The name is found also on a tablet in the museum of the Collegio Romano. (2) It is obvious that the “strangers of Rome”—the Jews from the capital of the empire—were likely to be among the most prominent of the Hellenistæ at Jerusalem. It was antecedently probable that the name of one of that body should stand first on the list. (3) When Stephen becomes conspicuous as a teacher, the synagogue which is the most prominent scene of his activity is that of the Libertines, who can be none other than the freed-men or emancipated Jews from Rome. (See ote on Acts 6:9.) (4) Jews from Rome were, we have seen, present on the Day of Pentecost, and some conspicuous converts from among them had been made before Stephen appears on the scene. (See ote on Acts 4:37.) (5) The very appointment of the Seven has, as we have seen, its origin in the customs of the trade-guilds of Rome,

such as that to which the goldsmith Stephanus had belonged. Taking all these facts together, there seems sufficient ground to believe that in the proto-martyr of the Church, whose teaching and whose prayers exercised so marvellous an influence in the history of the Church of Christ, we have one of the earliest representatives of Roman Christianity. A tradition accepted by Epiphanius in the fourth century leads to another conclusion. Stephen and Philip were both, it was said, of the number of the Seventy who were sent shortly after the last Feast of Tabernacles in our Lord’s ministry into every city and village where He Himself would come. That mission, as has been said in the ote on Luke 10:1, was in its very form, symbolic of the admission of the Gentile nations to the kingdom of God; and it would seem from Luke 9:52; Luke 17:11, as if, at that time, Samaria had been the chief scene of our Lord’s ministry, and therefore of that of the Seventy. In a mission of such a nature, it was not unlikely that Hellenistic Jews should be more or less prominent, and the assumption of some previous connection with Samaria gives an adequate explanation both of Philip’s choice of that region as the scene of his work as an Evangelist (Acts 8:5) and of the general tendency of St. Stephen’s speech; perhaps also of one of the real or apparent inaccuracies which criticism has noted as a proof of ignorance either in the speaker or the writer. (See ote on Acts 7:16.) Admitting the comparative lateness of the tradition mentioned by Epiphanius, it was still antecedently probable that men, who had been brought into prominence by their Lord’s special choice, would not be passed over in such an election as that now before us; and if, as suggested in the ote on Luke 10:1, the Seventy were the representatives of the Prophets of the ew Testament, then it was natural that men should turn to them when they wanted to find men “full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom.”

Philip.—The coincidence of name with that of the Apostle and with two of Herod’s sons indicates that the name was as common as that of Stephen was rare. Of his previous history we know nothing, except the tradition that he also had belonged to the Seventy. His long-continued residence at Cæsarea just suggests the probability of an earlier connection with that city. The fact that he had four grown-up daughters when St. Paul came to Cæsarea makes it probable that he was married at the time of his appointment.

Prochorus, and icanor, and Timon, and Parmenas.—Of these four nothing is known, nor are there any materials even for probable conjecture. The name of icanor was memorable as that of the great enemy of Judah, who died in battle fighting against Judas Maccabæus. It appears, later on, as borne by a Jewish friend of Titus and Josephus (Wars, v. 6, § 2). That of Timon had been made conspicuous by the philosopher of Phlius and the misanthrope of Athens.

icolas a proselyte of Antioch.—ext to the first two names on the list, the last is that to which greatest interest attaches. (1) It is the first appearance in the history of the Christian Church of the city which was afterwards to be the mother-church of the Gentiles. (On Antioch and its position, see ote on Acts 11:19.) Here it will be enough to note that there was a large Jewish population there, and that Herod had gained the favour of the city by building a splendid colonnade along the whole

length of its chief street. (2) The name had been made memorable by icolaus of Damascus, who wrote a long and elaborate history of his own times, and pleaded for the Jews before Augustus and Agrippa (Jos. Ant. xii. 3, § 2; xvi. 2, § 3; 9, § 4). He appeared at Rome again as counsel for Archelaus, and was for many years the confidential friend and adviser of Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. xvii. 9, § 6; 11, § 3). Finding, as we do, an adopted son of Herod’s at Antioch (Acts 13:1), and a proselyte of that city bearing the name of his chosen companion, there seems some ground for assuming a link connecting the three together. (3) In any case icolas is memorable as the first person not of the race of Abraham named as admitted to full membership in the Church. He may have sacrificed to Apollo, or taken part in the licentious festivals of the grove of Daphne. The word “proselyte” is taken in its full sense, as including the acceptance of circumcision and the ceremonial law. He was, in technical language, a proselyte of Righteousness, not of the Gate. Had it been otherwise, his conversion would have anticipated the lesson taught afterwards by that of Cornelius. (4) The name of icolas has been identified by an early tradition as the founder of the sect of the icolaitanes condemned in Revelation 2:6. He, it was said, taught men “to misuse the flesh” (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 4, p. 187; Euseb. Hist. iii. 29). Some contended that he meant by this that it was to be subdued by a rigorous asceticism: others, that he held it to be a proof of spiritual progress to yield to sensuous impulses, and yet remain pure. The traditions are not of much value, and another interpretation of the name of the sect is now very generally adopted (see Revelation 2:6); but the fall of one of the Seven into the error of overstrained rigour, or a reaction from it, is not in itself inconceivable. In the ew Testament we never come across his name again.

PETT, "‘And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and icanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and icolaus a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.’

This practical solution pleased everyone and seven men were chosen out and set apart. The Greek sounding names may suggest that they were mainly selected from the Hellenist section, it being recognised that that was where the problems lay. And this may suggest that these seven were set aside to look after the Hellenistic widows, the Hebraic ones being seen as already catered for. The first-named, Stephen, was said to be ‘a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit’. This was simply in preparation for what was to follow, for all seven would undoubtedly have been chosen precisely because they were so. Certainly Stephen and Philip were about to cause great changes in ‘the church’.

These seven men were then brought to the Apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them as a sign of oneness with them. The laying on of hands was regularly in the Old Testament evidence of identification. Men identified themselves with their sacrifices by laying their hands on them. They appointed representatives by laying hands on them. Thus by this act these seven men were designated as representatives of the Apostles.

We only know the futures of Stephen and Philip, but we need not doubt that all began to serve God in their own way, for the persecution would shortly interrupt their ministry and they would mainly be driven out of Jerusalem to new pastures.

‘icolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.’ Seemingly the only one of the seven who was a comparatively recent convert to Judaism, and not born of Jewish parents, although it may simply signify that Luke knew him personally. (There are no genuine grounds for associating him with the icolaitans of Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15).

WHEDO, "5. Pleased… whole multitude—The organic consent of the entire body of both sexes, apparently, without which the measure would not have been adopted.

Full… faith… Holy Ghost—Luke pauses after Stephen’s name to add a precious eulogy, premonitory of his future history. It is remarkable that of the names the entire seven are Greek, a uniformity which could not exist without a cause. Hebrews had often indeed Greek names. Of the twelve apostles, as their names appear in the Acts, four are Greek. From the uniformity here it is perhaps too much to infer with some that the whole seven were foreign Greekish Jews added to Hebrew deacons already existing, for, as we have already intimated, the present office was entirely new. We may infer that possibly the Church, magnanimously to the weaker party, chose Greekish Jews alone. Or perhaps three were Hebrews with Greek names, three were foreign Jews, and one proselyte through Judaism from the Gentiles.

icolas a proselyte of Antioch—First a Gentile, then a Jew, then a Christian. He was led by Moses from Paganism to Christ. Of the seven, two alone, Stephen and Philip, have any history in the ew Testament; while a third, this icolas, possesses a singular note in ecclesiastical literature. He was said by Irenaeus to have been the founder of the vile sect of icolaitans condemned in Revelation 2:14. And this statement is confirmed by the recently discovered work of Hippolytus, an authority considered by Pressense decisive upon this point. It is indeed certain that that infamous sect claimed him as their founder. Yet the statement of Clement of Alexandria, an early and discriminating authority, seems well to account for the assumption of his name by the sect and yet exculpate him from guilt. It was a favourite maxim of icolas that “it is right to abuse ( παραχρησθαι) the flesh.” This maxim was doubtless identical with the maxim that “all evil lies in matter,” or flesh. (See note on Acts 8:8.) Both these maxims could alike be interpreted to mean either that the flesh should be mortified ascetically, or indulged licentiously. It is very possible that icolas meant it in an ascetic sense, while a licentious sect used it as a license for infamy and claimed the credit of his name. Just so Epicurus taught in a good sense the maxim that virtue and pleasure coincide, meaning that true pleasure could be attained only by virtue. But the Epicureans made it to mean that the pursuit of pleasure is all the virtue there is.

COSTABLE, "All seven men whom the congregation chose had Greek names. Luke gave the impression by using only Greek names that these seven were from the Hellenistic group in the church, though many Palestinian Jews at this time had Greek names. Thus Hellenists appear to have been given responsibility for settling a

Hellenist complaint, a wise approach.

"One commentator has called it the first example of affirmative action-'Those with political power generally repressed complaining minorities; here the apostles hand the whole system over to the offended minority.'" [ote: Witherington, p. 248. His quotation is from Craig Keener, Bible Background Commentary, p. 338.]Stephen and Philip appear later in Acts in important roles as apologist and evangelist respectively. Luke did not mention Prochorus, icanor, Timon, and Parmenas again. icolas was a Gentile who had become a Jew by the proselyte process and then became a Christian. He came from Antioch of Syria, which Luke may have mentioned because of Antioch's later prominence as a center of Christianity. Traditionally Antioch was Luke's hometown. Tradition also links this icolas with the doctrine of the icolaitans (Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15), but this connection is questionable since there is no solid evidence to support it. Many Jews lived in Syria because of its proximity to Judea, and most of these lived in the city of Antioch. [ote: Irena Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting, p. 128.]

BURKITT, "Observe here, That to remove the forementioned murmuring at the inequality of the poor's relief, seven deacons were chosen to assist the apostles, and to dispose of that treasure (which had been laid down at the apostles' feet) with more indifferency to all fit objects of charity without exception.

Here note, 1. The qualification of the persons chosen; Men full of the Holy Ghost: That is, persons that were extraordinarily assisted by the Spirit to perform the duties required of them; for the office of a deacon was besides the taking care of the poor, to preach the gospel, and to baptize, as it appears Phillip did; had it been only to take care of the poor, they needed not to be so inquisitive to find out men full of the Holy Ghost for that service.

Here observe, That the scripture mentions a threefold fullness of the Holy Ghost, according to a threefold capacity of the receivers.

There is plenitudo sufficientia, the fulness of a vessel; this every believer hath; there is plenitudo abundantia, the fulness of a stream; this the apostles had, when extraordinarily inspired, and filled with the Spirit at the first plantation of the gospel; and there is plenitudo superabundantia, the fullness of a fountain; and this Christ had, It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell Colossians 1:19.

ote, 2. The manner how these deacons enter into their office; it is by prayer and imposition of hands, They prayed and laid their hands on them Acts 6:6.

This rite of laying on of hands was used anciently upon a threefold occasion in the Jewish church: namely,

in their sacrifices. Exodus 29:15.

In their blessing, Genesis 48:14.

And in their designation unto a charge or office, umbers 27:18.

Thus Moses laid his hands on Joshua; and from hence it was derived and brought into the gospel church, when ministers were ordained by the apostles in the primitive times, they laid their hands upon them, 1 Timothy 5:22.

ote, 3. The mighty success of the gospel, notwithstanding all the violent opposition that was made against it; The word of God, that is, the doctrine of the gospel, increased, the number of believers multiplied: yea, some of the priest themselves, though formerly bitter enemies to Christ, now embraced the faith, and were joined to the church; great is truth, especially the spirit of truth, and will prevail. aked truth is too hard for armed error. Truth has the strength of God in it, and therefore human power can never prevail against divine truth. So mighty grew the word of God and prevailed.

PULPIT, "Holy Spirit for Holy Ghost, A.V. The mention of Stephen, and the narrative which follows leading up from Stephen's martyrdom to St. Paul (Acts 7:60), show to what the writer is tending. He selects the incidents in the history of the Church at Jerusalem which connect themselves most directly with that after history which was the object he had in view. It has been thought by some that the Greek character of all seven names is an indication that they were Hellenists. Such a conclusion, however, is not warranted, as many Jews who were not Hellenists had Greek or Latin names, e.g. Paul, Sylvanus, Aquila, Priscilla, Marcus, Justus, Petrus, Didymus, etc. At the same time, it is likely that some of them were. One, icolas, was a proselyte. The object, doubtless, was to ensure perfect fairness of distribution of the Church charities. Stephen and Philip (Acts 8:5, etc.; Acts 21:8) are the only two of whom we know anything beyond their names.

PULPIT 5-8, "Stephen, the proto-martyr.

Very little is known of his history. And, except for the sake of introducing Saul of Tarsus, and indicating the influence that Stephen's teachings and martyrdom exerted upon him, it is difficult for us to trace why the brief record of his work and death are preserved for us by St. Luke. We judge that he was a Hellenist, by his name; but it is not known from what country he came. He is represented by Epiphanius as one of the seventy disciples chosen by Christ. Others think that he was one of St. Peter's converts on the day of Pentecost. Dr. Dykes fixes on the point most demanding our attention when he says, "The elevation of Stephen to official rank had this for one of its results, that the spiritual and intellectual gifts with which God had endowed this man found at once a wider and more public sphere. Stephen was more than an almoner. He was a deep student of the Old Testament, a theologian of unusual insight, a powerful reasoner and an advanced Christian. In him, too, we find that promise fulfilled which had hitherto been fulfilled to Peter,

the promise of such wisdom in speech as no adversary could gainsay. 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." We dwell on the mission of Stephen as suggested by the terms of the above passages.

I. HE WAS A MA OF FAITH. It is twice noticed that he was "full of faith"—an expression which may be taken to mean:

1. That he was unusually open and receptive to the Christian truth and grace; for some manuscripts read, "full of grace."

2. Or that he was unusually zealous and active in proclaiming Christ. Faith is sometimes the equivalent of piety, sometimes of activity. The man of faith is, from one point of view, the man of piety; from another point of view he is the man of activity, who readily overcomes hindrances, and, relying on Divine help, goes on in his work, con~ secreting himself wholly to it. Faith is too often thought of as a cherished sentiment; it is for Christians the inspiration of practical life and duty. They should be earnest in service, and find the earnestness maintained by their trust. Faith evidently kept very near to Stephen the vision of the exalted and living Christ.

II. STEPHE AS A MA OF POWER. This was shown in

III. STEPHE IS A MA MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST. ot simply endowed with intellectual gifts, but under special constrainings of the Holy Ghost; called to a special work, and suitably enriched and inspired for that work. Where there is a full consecration of heart, and an entire openness of life, there the Holy Spirit will come, making the man his agent, and assuring to his labors full success.

IV. STEPHE AS A MA BEFORE HIS TIME. Only gradually did the true relations between Judaism and Christianity dawn upon the apostles. But Stephen saw them, and boldly announced them, putting them on men's thoughts, if he might not win for them a present acceptance. Perhaps, as a Hellenist, he had not so great prejudices to overcome as had the Palestinian Jews. Stephen paid the penalty which usually comes to those whose thoughts and teachings are in advance of their age. His enemies were quite right. From their point of view he was a most dangerous man—no one of the Christian band was so dangerous. But he was one of the noblest of men. He is a sublime example. His brief life is an abiding witness. Being dead, he speaks with a martyr's voice, bidding us do noble things for Christ, and trust him to give us strength for the doing.—R.T.

Rees, Oh, for trust that brings the triumph, When defeat seems strangely near;Oh, for faith that changes fighting

Into victory’s wringing cheer; Faith triumphant, Knowing not defeat nor fear.

It could be that there were seven others already serving the Hebrew Jews. Macaulay, “The Hebrews controlled the vote, and they gave it to their brothern who felt they had been wronged. Such a gracious gesture was calculated to kill the old feud. And effect a new realization of their oneness in Christ.”

icolaus-a heathen converted to Judaism and now to Christianity. The fact that his place of birth in Antioch was mentioned confirms the tradition that Luke was from that city.

Stephen-he and all the 7 were laymen, but we see also that they were preachers and did miracles, and so these things were not limited to the Apostles. The acts of the Apostles includes the acts of non-Apostles also. He became one of the first specialists in the church. He was a man of great gifts and was full of more positive values then any man in the . T. He was superior to some of the Apostles. Most of them are only named but two chapters are given to Stephen. God in His providence selected Stephen to get his life recorded. Macaulay, “A good church will expect to lose the best of its younger officers to wider fields, and will accept it as a blessed ministry to train them for the larger call.”

Full of the Holy Spirit. Rees says-one controlled by the Holy Spirit. “A Spirit-filled person doesn’t gallop ahead and make decisions without any reference to the mind of Christ or the directing word of the Holy Spirit.”

EBC 5-11, "ST. STEPHEN AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

THE names of the seven chosen on the suggestion of the Apostles raises very naturally the question, To what office were they appointed? Did the seven elected on this occasion represent the first beginning of that office of deacon which is regarded as the third rank in the Church, bishops being first, and presbyters or priests second. It is agreed by all parties that the title of deacon is not given to them in the sixth chapter of the Acts, and yet such an unprejudiced and fair authority as Bishop Lightfoot, in his Essay on the Christian Ministry, maintains that the persons selected and ordained at this crisis constituted the first origin of the diaconate as it is now known. The Seven are not called, either here or wherever else they are mentioned in the Acts, by the name of deacons,

though the word διακονϵKν (serve), which cannot be exactly rendered into English, as the noun deacon has no equivalent verb answering to it, is applied to the duties assigned to them. But all the best critics are agreed that the ordination of the Seven was the occasion of the rise of a new order and a new office in the Church, whose work dealt more especially with the secular side of the ministerial function. The great German critic, Meyer, commenting on this sixth chapter, puts it well, though not so clearly as we should like. "From the first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appointment to which could not but regulate analogically the practice of the Church, was gradually developed the diaconate, which subsequently underwent further elaboration." This statement is

somewhat obscure, and thoroughly after the manner of a German critic; let us develop it a little, and see what the process was whereby the distributers of alms to the widows of the earliest Church organisation became the officials of whom St. Laurence of Rome in the third, and St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century were such eminent examples.

I. The institutions of the synagogue must necessarily have exercised a great influence over the minds of the Apostles and of their first converts. One fact alone vividly illustrates this idea. Christians soon began to call their places of assembly by the name of churches or the Lord’s houses, but the old habit was at first too strong, and so the churches or congregations of the earliest Christians were called synagogues. This is evident even from the text of the Revised Version of the New Testament, for if we turn to the second chapter of the Epistle of James we read there, "If there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring,"-showing that in St. James’s day a Christian Church was called a synagogue. This custom received some few years ago a remarkable confirmation from the records of travel and discovery. The Marcionites were a curious Christian sect or heresy which sprang up in the second century. They were intensely opposed to Judaism, and yet so strong was this tradition that even they seemed to have retained, down to the fourth century, the name of synagogue as the title of their churches, for some celebrated French explorers have discovered in Syria an inscription, still in existence, carved over the door of a Marcionite church, dated A.D. 318, and that inscription runs thus: "The Synagogue of the Marcionites."

Now seeing that the force of tradition was so great as to compel even an anti-Jewish sect to call their meeting-houses by a Jewish name, we may be sure that the tradition of the institutions, forms, and arrangements of the synagogue must have been infinitely more potent with the earliest Christian believers, constraining them to adopt similar institutions in their own assemblies. Human nature is always the same, and the example of our own colonists sheds light upon the course of Church development in Palestine. When the Pilgrim Fathers went to America, they reproduced the English constitution and the English laws in that country with so much precision and accuracy that the expositions of law produced by American lawyers are studied with great respect in England. The American colonists reproduced the institutions and laws with which they were familiar, modifying them merely to suit their own peculiar circumstances; and so has it been all the world over wherever the Anglo-Saxon race has settled-they have done exactly the same thing. They have established states and governments modelled after the type of England, and not of France or Russia. So was it with the early Christians. Human nature compelled them to fall back upon their first experience, and to develop under a Christian shape the institutions of the synagogue under which they had been trained. And now, when we read the Acts, we see that here lies the most natural explanation of the course of history, and specially of this sixth chapter. In the synagogue, as Dr. John Lightfoot expounds it in his "Horae Hebraicae," (Mat_4:23) the government was in the hands of the ruler and the council of elders or presbyters, while under them there were three almoners or deacons, who served in the same capacity as the Seven in superintending the charitable work of the congregation. The great work for which the Seven were appointed was distribution, and we shall see that this was ever maintained, and is still maintained, as the leading idea of the diaconate, though other and more directly spiritual work was at once added to their functions by St. Stephen and St. Philip. Now, just as our colonists brought English institutions and ideas with them wherever they settled, so was it with the missionaries who went forth from the Mother Church of Jerusalem. They carried the ideas and institutions with them which had been there sanctioned by the Apostles, and thus we find deacons mentioned in conjunction with

bishops at Philippi, deacons joined with bishops in St. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy, and the existence of the institution at Corinth, and its special work as a charitable organisation, implied in the description given of Phoebe to the Roman Christians in the sixteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul’s directions to Timothy in the third chapter of his first Epistle deal both with deacons and deaconesses, and in each case lay down qualifications specially suited for distributers of charitable relief, whose duty called upon them to visit from house to house, but say nothing about any higher work. They are indeed "to hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience; " they must be sound in the faith like the Seven themselves; but the special qualifications demanded by St. Paul are those needed in almoners: "The deacons must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre."

So far as to the testimony of Scripture. When we pass beyond the bounds of the canonical books, and come to the apostolic fathers, the evidence is equally clear. They testify to the universality of the institution, and bear witness to its work of distribution. Clement of Rome was a contemporary of the Apostles. He wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, which is the earliest witness to the existence of St. Paul’s Epistles to the same Church. In Clement’s epistle we find express mention of deacons, of their apostolic appointment, and of the universal diffusion of the office. In the forty-third chapter of his epistle Clement writes to the Corinthians concerning the Apostles:-"Thus preaching through countries and cities they appointed bishops and deacons for those who should afterwards believe," clearly implying that deacons then existed at Rome, though we have no express notice of them in the epistle written by St. Paul to the Roman Church.

There is a rule, however, very needful for historical investigations. Silence is no conclusive argument against an alleged fact, unless there be silence where, if the alleged fact had existed, it must have been mentioned. Josephus, for instance, is silent about Christ and Christianity. Yet he wrote when its existence was a matter of common notoriety. But there was no necessity for him to notice it. It was an awkward fact too, and so he is silent. St. Paul does not mention deacons as existing at Rome, though he does mention them at Philippi. But Clement’s words expressly assert that universally, in all cities and countries, this order was established wherever the Apostles taught; and so we find it even from Pagan records. Pliny’s letter to Trajan, written about A.D. 110, some fifteen or twenty years later than Clement, testifies that the order of deacons existed in far distant Bithynia, among the Christians of the Dispersion to whom St. Peter directed his Epistle. Pliny’s words are, "I therefore thought it the more necessary, in order to ascertain what truth there was in this account, to examine two slave-girls who were called deaconesses (ministrae), and even to use torture." (See the article Trajanus in the "Dict. Christ. Biog.," 4:1040.) It is exactly the same with St. Ignatius in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Trallians, which dates about the same period. The spiritual side of the office had now come more prominently into notice, as the occasion of their first appointment had fallen into disuse; but still Ignatius recognises the origin of the diaconate when he writes that "the deacons are not deacons of meats and drinks, but servants of the Church of God" (Lightfoot, "Apost. Fathers," vol 2. sec. 1. p. 156). While again Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 5., recognises the same qualities as necessary to deacons which St. Paul requires and enumerates in his Epistle to Timothy. Justin Martyr, a little later, twenty years or so, tells us that the deacons distributed the elements consecrated in the Holy Communion to the believers that were absent (Justin, "First Apol.," ch. 67.). This is most important testimony, connecting the order of deacons as then flourishing at Rome and their work with the Seven constituted by the Apostle. The daily distribution of the Apostles’ time was closely connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, which indeed in its meal or food, common to all the faithful, and its

charitable collections and oblations, of which Justin Martyr speaks, retained still some trace of the daily distribution which prevailed in the early church, and occasioned the choice of the Seven. The deacons in Justin Martyr’s day distributed the spiritual food to the faithful, just as in earlier times they distributed all the sustenance which the faithful required, whether in their spiritual or their temporal aspect. It is evident from this recital of the places where the deacons are incidentally referred to, that their origin was never forgotten, and that distribution of charitable relief and help was always retained as the essence, the central idea and notion, of the office of deacon, though at the same time other and larger functions were by degrees entrusted to them, as the Church grew and increased, and ecclesiastical life and wants became more involved and complex. History bears out this view. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, and must have known many apostolic men, men who had companied with the Apostles and knew the whole detail of primitive Church government; and Irenaeus, speaking of Nicolas the proselyte of Antioch, describes him as "one of the seven who were first ordained to the diaconate by the Apostles." Now Irenaeus is one of our great witnesses for the authenticity of the Four Gospels; surely then he must be an equally good witness to the origin of the order of deacons and the existence of the Acts of the Apostles which is implied in this reference. It is scarcely necessary to go farther in Church history, but the lower one goes the more clearly we shall see that the original notion of the diaconate is never forgotten. In the third century we find that there were still only seven deacons in Rome, though there were forty-six presbyters, a number which was retained down to the twelfth century in the seven cardinal deacons of that Church. The touching story of the martyrdom of St. Laurence, Archdeacon of Rome in the middle of the third century, shows that he was roasted over a slow fire in order to extort the vast sums he was supposed to have in charge for the purpose of relieving the sick and the poor connected with the Roman Church; proving that the original conception of the office as an executive and charitable organisation was then vigorously retained; just as it is still set forth in the ordinal of the Church of England, where, after reciting how the deacon’s office is to help the priest in several subordinate positions, it goes on to say, "Furthermore, it is his office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the parish, to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved by the alms of the parishioners."

The only objection of any value which has been raised to this line of argument is based on a mere assumption. It has been said that the Seven were appointed for a special emergency, and to serve a temporary purpose connected with the community of goods which existed in the early Church of Jerusalem, and therefore when this arrangement ceased the office itself ceased also. But this argument is based on the assumption that the Christian idea of a community of goods wholly passed away, so that services of an order like the Seven were no longer required. This is a pure assumption. The community of goods as practised at Jerusalem was found by experience to be a mistake. The shape of the idea was changed, but the idea itself survived. The old form of community of goods passed away. The Christians retained their rights of private property, but were taught to regard this private property as in a sense common, and liable for all the wants and needs of their poor and suffering brethren. A charitable order, or at least an order charged with the care of the poor, and their relief, must inevitably have sprung up among the Jewish Christians. The relief of the poor was a necessary part of the duty of a synagogue. The Jewish domestic law enforced a poor-rate, and collected it through the organisation of each synagogue, by means of three deacons attached to each. Selden, in his great work on "The Laws of the Hebrews," bk. 2. chap. 6. ("Works," 1:632), tells us that if "any Jew did not pay his fair contribution he was punished with stripes." As soon as the Jewish

Christians began to organise themselves, the idea of almoners, with their daily and weekly distributions, after the synagogue model, was necessarily developed. We have an unexceptionable piece of evidence upon this point. The satirist Lucian lived at the close of the second century. He was a bitter scoffer, who jeered at every form of religion, and at Christianity above all. He wrote an account of a certain Syrian named Peregrinus Proteus, who was an impostor trading upon the religious principles of various philosophical sects, and specially on those of the Christians. Lucian tells us that the Christians were the easiest persons to be deceived, because of their opinions. Lucian’s words are interesting as showing what a second-century pagan, a clever literary man too, thought of Christianity, viewing it from the outside. For this reason we shall quote a little more than the words which immediately bear upon the subject. "It is incredible with what alacrity these people (the Christians) support and defend the public cause. They spare nothing, in fact, to promote it. These poor men have persuaded themselves that they shall be immortal, and live for ever. They despise death therefore, and offer up their lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taught by their lawgiver that they are all brethren, and that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must worship their own sophist, who was crucified, and live in obedience to His laws. In compliance with them, they look with contempt upon all worldly treasures, and hold everything in common-a maxim which they have adopted without any reason or foundation. If any cunning impostor, therefore, who knows how to manage matters, come amongst them, he soon grows rich by imposing on the credulity of those weak and foolish men." We can see here that the great outer world of paganism considered a community of goods as still prevailing among the Christians. Their boundless liberality, their intense devotion to the cause of their suffering brethren, proved this, and therefore, because a practical community of goods existed amongst them, an order of men was required to superintend the distribution of their liberality in the second century just as tru1y as the work of the Seven was needed in the Church of Jerusalem.

II. We thus can see that the office of deacon, as now constituted, had its origin in apostolic times, and is built upon a scriptural foundation; but here we are bound to point out a great difference between the ancient and the modern office. An office or organisation may spring up in one age, and after existing for several centuries may develop into a shape utterly unlike its original. Yet it may be very hard to point out any special time when a vital change was made. All we can say is that the first occupants of the office would never recognise their modern successors. Take the papacy as an instance. There has been at Rome a regular historical succession of bishops since the first century. The succession is known and undoubted. Yet could one of the bishops of Rome of the first three centuries, -above all, could a first-century bishop of Rome like St. Clement-by any possibility recognise himself or his office in the present Pope Leo XIII? Yet one would find it difficult to fix the exact moment when any vital change was made, or any unwonted claims put forward on behalf of the Roman See. So was it in the case of deacons and their office. Their modern successors may trace themselves back to the seven elected in the primitive Church at Jerusalem, and yet the office is now a very different one in practice from what it was then. Perhaps the greatest difference, and the only one we can notice, is this. The diaconate is now merely the primary and lowest rank of the Christian ministry; a kind of apprenticeship, in fact, wherein the youthful minister serves for a year, and is then promoted as a matter of course; whereas in Jerusalem or Rome of old it was a lifelong office, in the exercise of which maturity of judgment, of piety, and of character were required for the due discharge of its manifold duties. It is now a temporary office, it was of old a permanent one. And the apostolical custom was much the best. It avoided many difficulties and solved many a problem. At present the

office of the diaconate is practically in abeyance, and yet the functions which the ancient deacons discharged are not in abeyance, but are placed upon the shoulders of the other orders in the Church, already overwhelmed with manifold responsibilities, and neglecting, while serving tables, the higher aspects of their work. The Christian ministry in its purely spiritual, and specially in its prophetical or preaching aspect, is sorely suffering because an apostolic office is practically set aside. In the ancient Church it was never so. The deacons were chosen to a life-office. It was then but very seldom that a man chosen to the diaconate abandoned it for a higher function. It did not indeed demand the wholesale devotion of time and attention which the higher offices of the ministry did. Men even till a late period, both in East and West, combined secular pursuits with it. Thus let us take one celebrated instance. The ancient Church of England and Ireland alike was Celtic in origin and constitution. It was intensely conservative, therefore, of ancient customs and usages derived from the times of persecution, when Christianity was first taught among the Gauls and Celts of the extreme West. The well-known story of the introduction of Christianity into England under St. Augustine and the opposition he met with prove this. As it was in other matters, so was it with the ancient Celtic deacons; the old customs remained; they held office for life, and joined with it at the same time other and ordinary occupations. St. Patrick, for instance, the apostle of Ireland, tells us that his father Calpurnius was a deacon, and yet he was a farmer and a decurion, or alderman, as we should say, of a Roman town near Dumbarton on the river Clyde. This happened about the year 400 of the Christian era.

Here indeed, as in so many other cases, the Church of Christ needs to go back to scriptural example and to apostolic rule. We require for the work of the Church deacons like the primitive men who devoted their whole lives to this one object; made it the subject of their thoughts, their cares, their studies, how they might instruct the ignorant, relieve the poor and widows, comfort the prisoners, sustain the martyrs in their last supreme hour; and who, thus using well the office of a deacon, found in it a sufficient scope for their efforts and a sufficient reward for their exertions, because they thereby purchased for themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith of Jesus Christ. The Church now requires the help of living agencies in vast numbers, and they are not forthcoming. Let her avail herself of apostolic resources, and fall back upon primitive precedents. The real diaconate should be revived. Godly and spiritual men should be called upon to do their duty. Deacons should be ordained without being called to give up their ordinary employments. Work which now unduly accumulates upon overburdened shoulders should be assigned to others suitably to their talents, and thus a twofold blessing would be secured. Christian life would flourish more abundantly, and many a rent and schism, the simple result of energies repressed and unemployed, would be destroyed in their very commencement.

We have devoted much of our space to this subject, because it is one of great interest, as touching the origin and authority of the Christian ministry, and also because it has been a subject much debated; but we must hurry on to other points connected with the first appointment of the diaconate. The people selected the person to be ordained to this work. It is probable that they made their choice out of the different classes composing the Christian community. The mode of election of the Seven, and the qualifications laid down by the Apostles, were derived from the synagogue. Thus we read in Kitto’s "Cyclopaedia," art. "Synagogue:"-"The greatest care was taken by the rulers of the synagogue and of the congregation that those elected almoners should be men of modesty, wisdom, justice, and have the confidence of the people. They had to be elected by the harmonious voice of the people." Seven deacons altogether were chosen. Three were probably Hebrew Christians, three Grecian Christians or Hellenists, and one a

representative of the proselytes, Nicolas of Antioch. This would have been but natural. The Apostles wanted to get rid of murmurs, jealousies, and divisions in the Church, and in no way could this have been more effectually done than by the principle of representation. Had the Seven been all selected from one class alone, divisions and jealousies would have prevailed as of old. The Apostles themselves had proved this. They were all Hebrew Christians. Their position and authority might have secured them from blame. Yet murmurings had arisen against them as distributers, and so they devised another plan, which, to have been successful, as it doubtless was, must have proceeded on a different principle. Then when the seven wise and prudent men were chosen from the various classes, the Apostles asserted their supreme position: "When the Apostles had prayed, they laid their hands on them." And as the result peace descended like a shower upon the Church, and spiritual prosperity followed upon internal peace and union.

III. "They laid their hands on them." This statement sets forth the external expression and the visible channel of the ordination to their office which the Apostles conferred. This action of the imposition of hands was of frequent use among the ancient Jews. The Apostles, as well acquainted with Old Testament history, must have remembered that it was employed in the case of designation of Joshua as the leader of Israel in the place of Num_27:18-23; (compare Deu_34:9) that it was used even in the synagogue in the appointment of Jewish rabbis, and had been sanctioned by the practice of Jesus Christ. The Apostles naturally therefore, used this symbol upon the solemn appointment of the first deacons, and the same ceremonial was repeated upon similar occasions. Paul and Barnabas were set apart at Antioch for their missionary work by the imposition of hands. St. Paul uses the strongest language about the ceremony. He does not hesitate to attribute to it a certain sacramental force and efficacy, bidding Timothy "stir up the gift of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands"; (2Ti_1:6) while again, when we come down a few years later, we find the "laying on of hands" reckoned as one of the fundamental elements of religion, in the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But it was not merely in the solemn appointment of officials in the Church that this ceremony found place. It was employed by the Apostles as the rite which filled up and perfected the baptism which had been administered by others. Philip baptised the Samaritans. Peter and John laid their hands tin them and they received the Holy Ghost. The ceremony of imposition of hands was so essential and distinguishing a point that Simon Magus selects it as the one he desires above all others effectually to purchase, so that the outward symbol might be followed by the inward grace. "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost," was the prayer of the arch-heretic to St. Peter; while again in the nineteenth chapter we find St. Paul using the same visible ceremony in the case of St. John’s disciples, who were first baptised with Christian baptism, and then endued by St. Paul with the gift of the Spirit. Imposition of hands in the case of ordination is a natural symbol, indicative of the transmission of function and authority. It fitly indicates and notifies to the whole Church the persons who have been ordained, and therefore has ever been regarded as a necessary part of ordination. St. Jerome, who was a very keen critic as well as a close student of the Divine oracles, fixes upon this public and solemn designation as a sufficient explanation and justification of the imposition of hands in ordinations, test any one should be ordained without his knowledge by a silent and solitary prayer. Hence every branch of the Church of Christ has rigorously insisted upon imposition of hands after the apostolic example, in the case of ordinations to official positions, with one or two apparent and very doubtful exceptions, which merely prove the binding character of the rule.

IV. The list of names again is full of profit and of warning. How completely different from human histories, for instance, is this Divine record of the first doings of the Church! How thoroughly shaped after the Divine model is this catalogue of the earliest officials chosen by the Apostles! Men have speculated whether they were Hebrews or Grecians, whether they belonged to the seventy sent forth by Christ or to the hundred and twenty who first gathered into the upper room at Jerusalem. All such speculations are curious and interesting, but they have nothing to do with man’s salvation; therefore they are sternly put on one side and out of sight. How we should long to know the subsequent history of these men, and to trace their careers! yet Holy Writ tells us but very little about them, nothing certain, in fact, save what we learn about St. Stephen and St. Philip. God bestowed Holy Scripture upon men, not to satisfy or minister to their curiosity, but to nourish their souls and edify their spirits. And surely no lesson is more needed than the one implied in the silences of this passage; there is in truth none more necessary for our publicity-seeking and popularity-hunting age than this, that God’s holiest servants have laboured in obscurity, have done their best work in secret, and have looked to God alone and to His judgment for their reward. I have said indeed that concerning the list of names recorded as those of the first deacons, we know nothing but of St. Stephen and St. Philip, whose careers will again come under our notice in later chapters. There is, however, a current tradition that Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch, did distinguish himself, but in an unhappy direction. It is asserted by Irenaeus in his work "Against Heresies" (Book 1. chap. 26), that Nicolas was the founder of the sect of Nicolaitans denounced in the Revelation of St. John. (Rev_2:6; Rev_2:16) Critics are, however, much divided upon this point. Some clear Nicolas of this charge, while others uphold it. It is indeed impossible to determine this matter. But supposing that Nicolas of Antioch was the author of this heresy, which was of an antinomian character, like so many of the earliest heresies that distracted the primitive Church, this circumstance would teach us an instructive lesson. Just as there was a Judas Iscariot among the Apostles, and a Demas among St. Paul’s most intimate disciples, so was there a Nicolas among the first deacons. No place is so holy, no office so sacred, no privileges so great, but that the tempter can make his way there. He can lurk unseen and unsuspected amid the pillars of the temple, and he can find us out, as he did the Son of God Himself, amid the wilds of the desert. Official position and exalted privileges confer no immunity from temptation. Nay, rather, they bring with them additional temptations over and above those which assail the ordinary Christian, and should therefore lead every one called to any similar work to diligent watchfulness, to earnest prayer, lest while teaching others they themselves fall into condemnation. There is, however, another lesson which a different version of the history of Nicolas would teach. Clement of Alexandria, in his celebrated work called the "Stromata" (Book 2. chap. 20, and Book 3. chap. 4), tells us that Nicolas was a most strictly virtuous man. He was extreme even in his asceticism, and, like many ascetics, used language that might be easily abused to the purposes of wickedness. He was wont to say that the "flesh must be abused," meaning that it must be chastised and restrained. One-sided and extreme teaching is easily perverted by the wicked nature of man, and men of impure lives, listening to the language of Nicolas, interpreted his words as an excuse for abusing the flesh by plunging into the depths of immorality and crime. Men placed in official positions and called to the exercise of the clerical office should weigh their words. Extreme statements are bad unless duly and strictly guarded. The intention of the speaker may be good, and a man’s own life thoroughly consistent, but unbalanced teaching will fall upon ground where the life and intention of the teacher will have no power or influence, and bring forth evil fruit, as in the case of the Nicolaitans.

V. The central figure of this whole section of our narrative is St. Stephen. He is introduced into the narrative with the same startling suddenness which we may note in the case of Barnabas and of Elijah. He runs a rapid course, flings all, Apostles and every one else, into the shade for a time, and then disappears, exemplifying those fruitful sayings of inspiration, so true in our every-day experience of God’s dealings, "The first shall be last, and the last first." "Paul may plant, Apollos may water, but it is God alone that giveth the increase." Stephen, full of grace and power, did great signs and wonders among the people. These two words, grace and power, are closely connected. Their union in this passage 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. The Church of Christ is a supernatural society, and the work of Christ is a supernatural work, and in that work the grace of Christ is absolutely necessary to make any human gift or exertion effectual in carrying out His purposes of love and mercy. This is an age of organisations and committees and boards; and some good men are so wrapped up in them that they have no time to think of anything else. To this busy age these words, "Stephen, full of grace and power," convey a useful warning, teaching that the best organisations and schemes will be useless to produce Stephen’s power unless Stephen’s grace be found there as well. This passage is a prophecy and picture of the future in another aspect. The fulness of grace in Stephen wrought powerfully amongst the people. It was the savour of life unto life in some. But in others it was a savour of death unto death, and provoked them to evil deeds, for they suborned men "which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God."

We get in these words, in this false accusation, even through its falsehood, a glimpse into the character of St. Stephen’s preaching. A false accusation need not be necessarily altogether false. Perhaps rather we should say that, in order to be effective for mischief, a twisted, distorted charge, with some basis of truth, some semblance of justification about it, is the best for the accuser’s purpose, and the most difficult for the defendant to answer. St. Stephen was ripening for heaven more rapidly than the Apostles themselves. He was learning more rapidly than St. Peter himself the true spiritual meaning of the Christian scheme. He had taught in no ambiguous language the universal character of the Gospel and the catholic mission of the Church. He had expanded and applied the magnificent declarations of the Master Himself, "The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father"; "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipper’s shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." And then the narrow-minded Grecian Jews, anxious to vindicate their orthodoxy, which was doubted by their Hebrew brethren, distorted Stephen’s wider and grander conceptions into a charge of blasphemy against the holy man. What a picture of the future of Christ’s best and truest witnesses, especially when insisting on some nobler and wider or forgotten aspect of truth. Their teaching has been ever suspected, distorted, accused as blasphemous; and so it must ever be. And yet God’s servants, when they find themselves thus misrepresented, can realise to themselves that they are but following the course which the saints of every age have run, that they are being made like unto the image of Stephen the first martyr, and of Jesus Christ Himself, the King of Saints, who suffered under a similar accusation. The mere popularity-hunter will, of course, carefully eschew

such charges and suspicions. His object is human praise and reward, and he shapes his teaching so as to carefully avoid giving offence. But then the mere popularity-hunter seeks his reward here below, and very often gets it. Stephen, however, and every true teacher looks not for reward in this world. Stephen taught truth as God revealed it to his soul. He suffered the consequence, and then received his crown from that Almighty Judge before whose awful tribunal he ever consciously stood. Misrepresentation must ever be expected by God’s true servants. It must be discounted, borne with patiently, taken as a trial of faith and patience, and then, in God’s own time, it will turn out to our greater blessing. One consideration alone ought to prove sufficient to console us under such circumstances. If our teaching was not proving injurious to his cause, the Evil One would not trouble himself about it. Let us only take good heed lest our own self-love and vanity should lead us to annoy ourselves too much about the slander or the evil report, remembering that misrepresentation and slander is ever the portion of God’s servants. Jesus Christ and Stephen were thus treated. St. Paul’s teaching was accused of tending to licentiousness; the earliest Christians were accused of vilest practices; St. Athanasius in his struggles for truth was accused of rebellion and murder; the Reformers were accused of lawlessness; John Wesley of Romanism and disloyalty; William Wilberforce of being an enemy to British trade; John Howard of being an encourager of crime and immorality. Let us be content then if our lot be with the saints, and our portion be that of the servants of the Most High.

Again, we learn from this place how religious zeal can overthrow religion and work out the purposes of evil. Religious zeal, mere party spirit taking the place of real religion, led the Hellenists to suborn men and falsely accuse St. Stephen. They made an idol of the system of Judaism, and forgot its spirit. They worshipped their idol so much that they were ready to break the commandments of God for its sake. The dangers of party spirit in matters of religion, and the evil deeds which have been done in apparent zeal for God and real zeal for the devil, these are still the lessons, true for the future ages of the Church, which we read in this passage. And how true to life has even our own age found this prophetic picture. Men cannot indeed now suborn men and bring fatal charges against them in matters of religion, and yet they can fall into exactly the same crime. Party religion and party zeal lead men into precisely the same courses as they did in the days of St. Stephen. Partisanship causes them to violate all the laws of honour, of honesty, of Christian charity, imagining that they are thereby advancing the cause of Christ, forgetting that they are acting on the rule which the Scriptures repudiate, - they are doing evil that good may come, - and striving to further Christ’s kingdom by a violation of His fundamental precepts. Oh for more of the spirit of true charity, which will lead men to support their own views in a spirit of Christian love! Oh for more of that true grasp of Christianity which will teach that a breach of Christian charity is far worse than any amount of speculative error! The error, as we think it, may be in reality God’s own truth; but the violation of God’s law implied in such conduct as Stephen’s adversaries displayed, and as party zeal now often prompts, can never be otherwise than contrary to the mind and law of Jesus Christ.

6 They presented these men to the apostles, who

prayed and laid their hands on them.

OTES, "Since the ministry of the seven was that of service, they came to be called deacons, which means "servants." Luke describes in this short passage the origin of the diaconate (6:16), which was the church's second ministerial order. Up until that point, the apostolate had been the only ministerial order. When the apostles set these seven persons apart for their ministry of service, they performed for the first time the sacred rite of ordination.

That is not to say, however, that because their duties were primarily administrative and functional, they were inferior and had no spiritual quality. The first deacons preached as well. One of them, Stephen, performed miracles and vied with the apostles themselves in the high quality of his ministry. In fact, he exasperated the leaders of several Hellenized synagogues in Jerusalem because he outdid them in debate. Since they could not get the better of him at argumentation, they lied about him, contending that he disparaged both the law and the Temple and thereby blasphemed Moses and God. As a result, he was brought before the Sanhedrin.

In response to the questioning of the high priest, Stephen delivered the longest address recorded in the ew Testament other than our Lord's Sermon on the Mount. He turned the tables on his accusers by saying that they had blasphemed Moses by not keeping his law and had defamed the name of God by presuming that God, like some man-made idol, can be confined to a building made of stone.

His speech is a precis of Hebrew history. In one or two places it follows the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch rather than the Hebrew, for example, the age of Terah, Abraham's father, when he died (7:4; see Gen. 11:26, 32; 12:4). Stephen said that Abraham did not leave Haran until after Terah died, but according to the Hebrew version that gives Terah's death at age 205 and Abraham's departure at age 75, Abraham would have left Haran sixty years before Terah died. The Samaritan version, however, states that Terah died at age 145, which is consistent with Stephen's cornments. It must have galled the Jewish leaders when Stephen reminded them that Joseph was buried in Shechem among the Samaritans, whom they despised. His review of history was a scathing denunciation of Jewish apostasy, and according to his speech, what the Israelites had been, they were still. He denounced the Sanhedrin for both idolatry and Temple worship. Stephen must have been a great orator. He spoke passionately, as if he were reliving the events he recounted. Luke says his face was like that of an angel.

When Stephen told his auditors that they were stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears and that they resisted the Holy Spirit as their fathers had done, it was more than they could take. They gnashed their teeth in rage. Stephen lifted his

eyes toward heaven and cried out, "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (7:56). With that, the Jewish leaders rushed him and cast him out of the city and stoned him to death. In the process of throwing the stones, they placed their outer garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. Stephen died, asking God not to lay the sin of murder to the charge of them who slew him. By his death, he became the first martyr of the Christian church.

The martyrdom of Stephen led to a general persecution of the church in Jerusalem. Saul, for example, went from house to house seeking out the Christians and throwing them into prison. Most of the Christians left Jerusalem and sought safety in Judea and Samaria. The apostles, however, stayed in their post of duty with the mother church. This scattering of Christians meant at the same time the dissemination of the gospel. They carried their faith with them and gave it to others wherever they went. The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church.

BARES, "And when they had prayed - Invoking in this manner the blessing of God to attend them in the discharge of the duties of their office.

They laid their hands ... - Among the Jews it was customary to lay hands on the head of a person who was set apart to any particular office, Num_27:18; Compare Act_8:19. This was done, not to impart any power or ability, but to “designate” that they received their authority or commission from those who thus laid their hands on them, as the act of laying hands on the sick by the Saviour was an act signifying that the power of healing came from him, Mat_9:18; compare Mar_16:18. In such cases the laying on of the hands conveyed of itself no healing power, but was a sign or token that the power came from the Lord Jesus. Ordination has been uniformly performed in this way. See 1Ti_5:22. Though the seven deacons had been chosen by the church to this work, yet they derived their immediate commission and authority from the apostles.

CLARKE, "And when they had prayed - Instead of και, and, the Codex Bezae

reads οLτινες, who, referring the act of praying to the apostles, which removes a sort of ambiguity. The apostles prayed for these persons, that they might in every respect be qualified for their office, and be made successful in it. And, when they had done this, they laid their hands upon them, and by this rite appointed them to their office. So then, it plainly appears that the choice of the Church was not sufficient: nor did the Church think it sufficient; but, as they knew their own members best, the apostles directed them, Act_6:3, to choose those persons whom they deemed best qualified, according to the criterion laid down by the apostles themselves, that they should be of honest report, and full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. Let us examine the process of this business:

1. There was an evident necessity that there should be more helpers in this blessed work

2. The apostles called the disciples together, that they might consider of this necessity and provide for it, Act_6:3.

3. They directed the disciples to choose out from among themselves such persons as they judged the most proper for the work.

4. They gave them the criterion by which their choice should be directed; not any man, not every man, not their nearest relative, or best beloved friend; but such as were of honest report, whose public character was known to be unblemished; and men who were full of the Holy Ghost, the influence of which would keep all right within, and direct their hearts into all truth; and men who were known to be men of prudence and economy, for not every good and pious man may be proper for such a work.

5. Seven persons being chosen by the disciples, according to this criterion, are presented to the apostles for their approbation and confirmation.

6. The apostles, receiving them from the hands of the Church, consecrated them to God by prayer, imploring his blessing on them and their labor.

7. When this was done, they laid their hands upon them in the presence of the disciples, and thus appointed them to this sacred and important work; for it is evident they did not get their commission merely to serve tables, but to proclaim, in connection with and under the direction of the apostles, the word of life.

Let no man say that any of the things here enumerated was unnecessary, and let no Church pretend or affect to do without them.

1. No preacher or minister should be provided till there is a place for him to labor in, and necessity for his labor.

2. Let none be imposed upon the Church of Christ who is not of that Church, well known and fully approved by that branch of it with which he was connected.

3. Let none be sent to publish salvation from sin, and the necessity of a holy life, whose moral character cannot bear the strictest scrutiny among his neighbors and acquaintance.

4. Let none, however moral, or well reported of, be sent to convert souls, who has not the most solid reason to believe that he is moved thereto by the Holy Ghost.

5. Let those who have the power to appoint see that the person be a man of wisdom, i.e. sound understanding - for a witling or a blockhead, however upright, will never make a Christian minister; and that he be a man of prudence, knowing how to direct his own concerns, and those of the Church of God, with discretion.

6. Let no private person, nor number of private members in a Church, presume to authorize such a person, though in every way qualified to preach the Gospel; for even the one hundred and twenty primitive disciples did not arrogate this to themselves.

7. Let the person be brought to those to whom God has given authority in the Church, and let them, after most solemnly invoking God, lay their hands upon him, according to the primitive and apostolic plan, and thus devote him to the work of the ministry.

8. Let such a one from that moment consider himself the property of God and his Church, and devote all his time, talents, and powers, to convert sinners, and build up believers in their most holy faith.

9. And let the Church of God consider such a person as legitimately and divinely sent, and receive him as the ambassador of Christ.

GILL, "Whom they set before the apostles,.... They did not barely nominate and

propose them to them, but they brought them into their presence, and placed them before them, as the persons whom they had chosen, in order to be ordained by them.

And when they had prayed; for these seven men set before them, that they might appear to be richly qualified for this office, and might honourably and faithfully discharge it, to the peace of themselves, the advantage of the church, and the glory of God:

they laid their hands on them; that is, they ordained them, they installed them into their office, and invested them with it, using the rite or ceremony of laying on of hands, which was used by the apostles for the conferring of gifts, and in benedictions, and at the ordination of officers; and seems to be borrowed from the Jews, who used, it at the creation of doctors among them, and at the promotion of them to that dignity; and

which they call סמיכה, or ordination by imposition of hands; though that rite was not looked upon to be essentially necessary: for so they say (f),

"ordination or promotion to doctorship is not necessarily done, ביד, "by the hand", as

Moses did to Joshua, but even בדיבור, "by word" only; it was enough to say, I ordain thee, or be thou ordained or promoted.''

HERY, "The apostles appointed them to this work of serving tables for the present, Act_6:6. The people presented them to the apostles, who approved their choice, and ordained them. [1.] They prayed with them, and for them, that God would give them more and more of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom - that he would qualify them for the service to which they were called, and own them in it, and make them thereby a blessing to the church, and particularly to the poor of the flock. All that are employed in the service of the church ought to be committed to the conduct of the divine grace by the prayers of the church. [2.] They laid their hands on them, that is, they blessed them in the name of the Lord, for laying on hands was used in blessing; so Jacob blessed both the sons of Joseph; and, without controversy, the less is blessed of the greater (Heb_7:7); the deacons are blessed by the apostles, and the overseers of the poor by the pastors of the congregation. Having by prayer implored a blessing upon them, they did by the laying on of hands assure them that the blessing was conferred in answer to the prayer; and this was giving them authority to execute that office, and laying an obligation upon the people to be observant of them therein.

JAMISO, "when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them— the one proclaiming that all official gifts flowed from the Church’s glorified Head, the other symbolizing the communication of these to the chosen office-bearers through the recognized channels.

CALVI, "6.Having prayed, they laid their hands upon them. Laying on of hands was a solemn sign of consecration under the law. To this end do the apostles now lay their hands upon the deacons, that they may know that they are offered to God. otwithstanding, because this ceremony should of itself be vain, they add thereunto prayer, wherein the faithful commend unto God those ministers whom they offer unto him. This is referred unto the apostles, for all the people did not lay their

hands upon the deacons; but when the apostles did make prayer in the name of the Church, others also did add their petitions. Hence we gather that the laying on of hands is a rite agreeing unto order and comeliness, forasmuch as the apostles did use the same, and yet that it hath of itself no force or power, but that the effect dependeth upon the Spirit of God alone; which is generally to be thought of all ceremonies.

COFFMA, "They laid their hands upon them ... The Seven were already "full of the Holy Spirit" in the sense ordinary; and therefore something more is intended here. Luke himself connected the laying on of the apostles' hands with the gift extraordinary of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18); and coupled with Luke's statement a moment later that one of the Seven did "great wonders and signs among the people" (Acts 6:8), the teaching appears to be that the apostles here endowed the Seven with miraculous powers. To view the laying on of hands as a mere ceremony of ordination is incorrect. For more elaborate discussion of the laying on of hands, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:2.

ELLICOTT, "(6) When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.—This is the first mention of the act in the ew Testament. It had had an analogous meaning in the ritual of Israel (umbers 27:23) in acts of blessing (Genesis 48:13-14) and the transmission of functions. Its primary symbolism would seem to be that of the concentration for the moment of all the spiritual energy of prayer upon him on whom men lay their hands; and so of the bestowal of any office for which spiritual gifts are required. It had been used in the Jewish schools on the admission of a scribe to his office as a teacher. It soon became the customary outward and visible sign of such bestowal (Acts 13:3). Instruction as to what it thus meant entered into the primary teaching of all converts (Hebrews 6:2). It was connected with other acts that pre-supposed the communication of a spiritual gift (1 Timothy 5:22). Through well-nigh all changes of polity and dogma and ritual, it has kept its place with Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, among the unchanging witnesses of the Church’s universality and permanence, witnessing, as in Confirmation, to the diversity of spiritual gifts, and, as in Ordination, to their connection with every special office and administration in the Church of God.

WHEDO, "6. Whom they set before the apostles—The people selected and elected the men; the apostles were to ratify the election by laying hands upon them, implying a veto power in an extreme case where the good of the Church was at stake.

Laid their hands—This imposition of hands, the form of patriarchal benediction, was derived from Moses, (umbers 27:18,) and was permanent in the Jewish Church. It implied the identification of that touched individual from all the world for that office, and poured, as it were, through the hands of the imposer, the official individualization. This imposition of hands, adopted from the Jewish Church, is the true type by which every Christian Church would properly authenticate its established ministry. Were a pious layman to be cast upon a pagan island and by his holy labours to convert the people and gather a Church of thousands or millions, of

which the ministers were chosen and authenticated by other credentials than imposition of hands, both the Church and ministry should be accepted by others as valid in spite of the absence of the ew Testament form. Doubtless such a Church ought, in Christian propriety, upon learning the biblical example, to conform thereto. The neglect to do so would be worthy of disapproval, but would not invalidate the Church or ministry. (See note on Acts 13:3.)

COSTABLE, "Laying hands on someone symbolized the bestowal of a blessing (Genesis 48:13; et al.). It also represented identification with the person (Leviticus 1:4; Leviticus 3:2; et al.), commissioning as a kind of successor (umbers 27:23), and granting authority (Acts 8:17-19; Acts 9:17; Acts 13:3; Acts 19:6; 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:22; Hebrews 6:2). Here commissioning for a task is in view (cf. Acts 13:1-3) rather than formal ordination, which came later in church history. [ote: Witherington, p. 251.] Prayer accompanied this ceremony on this occasion, as was customary.

Many Bible students regard these seven men as the first deacons of the church. However, the text never uses the term "deacon" to describe them (cf. Acts 21:8). The Greek word diakonos (deacon) does not occur in Acts at all, though related forms of the word do even in this pericope. Diakonia ("serving" or "distribution" and "ministry") appears in Acts 6:1; Acts 6:4, and diakonein ("serve" or "wait on") occurs in Acts 6:2. I think it is more likely that these seven men represent a stage in the development of what later became the office of deacon. They probably served as a model for this office. Office typically follows function. The historical origin of deacons lies in Jewish social life. The historical origin of the elder office, incidentally, lies in Jewish civil and religious life, most recently in synagogue organization. As the Jerusalem church grew and as its needs and activities proliferated, it adopted some of the organizational features of Jewish culture that these Jewish believers knew well. [ote: See Phillip W. Sell, "The Seven in Acts 6 as a Ministry Team," Bibliotheca Sacra 167:665 (January-March 2010):58-67.]

"The early church had problems but, according to Acts, it also had leaders who moved swiftly to ward off corruption and find solutions to internal conflicts, supported by people who listened to each other with open minds and responded with good will." [ote: Tannehill, 2:81.]

PULPIT, "When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. They did not pray without imposition of hands, nor did they lay hands on them without prayer. So in the sacraments, in confirmation, and ordination, the outward sign or rite is accompanied by prayer for the thing signified. And God's grace is given through the sacrament or rite in answer to the prayer of faith (see Acts 8:15, and the Office for Baptism, the Prayer of Consecration in the Office for Holy Communion, and the Confirmation and Ordination Services). (For the laying on of hands as a mode of conveying a special grace and blessing, see umbers 27:3; Deuteronomy 34:9; Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 4:40; Acts 8:17; Acts 13:3; 1 Timothy 5:22; Hebrews 6:2.)

PULPit, "The laying on of hands.

This is the first mention of the custom in connection with the Christian community. It does not appear that our Lord set apart his apostles to their work by any formal ceremony. A little while before his passion he "breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." The imposition of hands was an instance of carrying over and adapting a Jewish custom. "It had an analogous meaning in the ritual of Israel (umbers 27:23) in acts of blessing (Genesis 48:13, Genesis 48:14) and the transmission of functions." It appears to have been used in the Jewish schools on the admission of a scribe to his office as a teacher. "Its primary symbolism would seem to be that of the concentration for the moment of all the spiritual energy of prayer upon him on whom men lay their hands; and so of the bestowal of any office for which spiritual gifts are required." For other Scripture references, see Acts 42:3; 1 Timothy 5:22; Hebrews 6:2. "The origin of this rite is to be looked for in patriarchal times, when it seems to have been a form simply of solemn benediction, as in Genesis 48:14. In the ew Testament we find the laying on of hands used by our Lord both in blessing and in healing; and again he promises to his disciples that they too should lay hands on the sick and they should recover. At the time when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, the doctrine of the 'laying on of hands' was one of the elements of Christian teaching" ('Dict. of Christian Antiquities;' see art. "Imposition of Hands" for the ceremonies in which the Christian Church has adapted the custom). This is an illustration of the importance of preserving valued ancient practices. It cannot be said that we have any Divine commands in regard to the laying on of hands, but the Church has found the practice to be significant and useful. It may be regarded as—

I. A SIG OF SELECTIO. For some reason the individual is singled out. For some particular office he is chosen. The selection is made by the whole Church. It is represented by the act of imposition done by one person, or by several, in the Church's name. The public nature of the act sets the individual forth prominently before the whole Church as the selected one.

II. A SIG OF UITED COFIDECE. This is more fully indicated in the form of imposition practiced by what are known as the Free Churches. At their ordination services the laying on of hands is done by the assembled presbyters, each laying a single hand on the head of the selected one, and the custom is mainly valued as an expression of mutual confidence in the Divine call of the selected one, and in his spiritual fitness for the office which he is about to undertake. It becomes an important part of an ordination service as a comforting assurance given to the candidate for office; and with this simple meaning of the rite some of the Free Churches are satisfied.

III. AS A SIG OF COMMUICATIO. "It was connected with other acts that presupposed the communication of a spiritual gift. Through well-nigh all changes of polity and dogma and ritual, it has kept its place with Baptism and the Supper of

the Lord, among the unchanging witnesses of the Church's universality and permanence." Hackett takes it as "a symbol of the impartation of the gifts and graces which they (the deacons) needed to qualify them for the office." Olshausen says, "The idea embraced in the laying on of hands was really just this, that by means of it there was effected a communication of the Spirit from the individual consecrating to the one ordained." Two questions need treatment.

1. Was the imposition an actual impartation of Divine gifts or the Divine Spirit? or was it only the outward symbol or sign of a Divine impartation which was beyond man's control?

2. If there was apostolic power to communicate the gift or the Spirit, have we sufficient ground for assuming that the power is retained by the teachers of the Church whom we regard as the successors of the apostles? Decision on and treatment of these questions must depend on our ecclesiastical bias. o earnest Christian need fail to realize the spiritual value and suggestiveness of this custom. It may, no doubt, be made to serve purely ritual purposes; but it may also be an important and useful Church ordinance, when it is observed on due consideration, and with suitable solemnity and prayer.—R.T.

7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

BARES, "And the word of God increased - That is, the gospel was more and more successful, or became more mighty and extensive in its influence. An instance of this success is immediately added.

And a great company of the priests - A great “multitude.” This is recorded justly as a remarkable instance of the power of the gospel. How great this company was is not mentioned, but the number of the priests in Jerusalem was very great; and their conversion was a striking proof of the power of truth. It is probable that they had been opposed to the gospel with quite as much hostility as any other class of the Jews. And it is now mentioned, as worthy of special record, that the gospel was sufficiently mighty to humble even the proud, and haughty, and selfish, and envious priests to the foot of the cross. One design of the gospel is to evince the power of truth in subduing all classes of people; and hence, in the New Testament we have the record of its having actually

subdued every class to the obedience of faith. Some mss., however, here instead of “priests” read Jews. This reading is followed in the Syriac version.

Were obedient to the faith - The word “faith” here is evidently put for the “Christian religion.” Faith is one of the main requirements of the gospel Mar_16:16, and by a figure of speech is put for the gospel itself. To become “obedient to the faith,” therefore, is to obey the requirements of the gospel, particularly what requires us to “believe.” Compare Rom_10:16. By the accession of the “priests” also no small part of the reproach would be taken away from the gospel, that it made converts only among the lower classes of the people. Compare Joh_7:48.

CLARKE, "The word of God increased - By such preachers as the apostles and these deacons, no wonder the doctrine of God increased - became widely diffused and generally known; in consequence of which, the number of the disciples must be greatly multiplied: for God will ever bless his own word, when ministered by those whom he has qualified to proclaim it.

A great company of the priests were obedient to the faith - This was one of the greatest miracles wrought by the grace of Christ: that persons so intent on the destruction of Christ, his apostles, and his doctrine, should at last espouse that doctrine, is astonishing; and that they who had withstood the evidence of the miracles of Christ should have yielded to the doctrine of his death and resurrection, is worthy of note. And from this we may learn that it is not by miracles that sinners are to be converted unto God, but by the preaching of Christ dying for their offenses, and rising again for their justification.

Instead of Lερεων, priests, a few MSS., and the Syriac, read Ιουδαιων, Jews; for the copyists seem to be struck here with two difficulties:

1. That such persons as these priests could be converted.

2. That the word οχλος, company, or multitude, could with propriety be applied to this class, which must have been inconsiderable in their numbers, when compared with the rest of the Jews.

To preserve the ancient reading, which is undoubtedly genuine, some have altered the

text by conjecture; and, by putting a comma after οχλος, and a και before των�Lερεων, make the text read thus: And a great multitude, and some of the priests, were obedient to the faith. This conjecture is unnecessary, as there is no such difficulty here as to require so desperate an expedient, which is not recommended by the evidence of a single MS. or version.

1. The grace of Christ Jesus can save even a murderous Jewish priest: his death is a grand atonement for all crimes and for the worst of sinners.

2. In the twenty-four courses of priests, there was not a multitude merely, but multitudes: indeed the number of ecclesiastics at Jerusalem was enormous. A great company out of these might be converted, and yet multitudes be left behind.

GILL, "And the word of God increased,.... This stratagem of Satan did not succeed to divide the church, but issued in the better decorum and discipline of it, and in the

spread and success of the Gospel; God thus making all things to work together for good;

and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; where Christ was crucified, the apostles were scourged, and treated with the utmost contempt, the sanhedrim and rulers of the Jews dwelt, who used all their power and craft to crush the Gospel, and hinder the progress of it, but in vain, there the word increased; which it may be said to do, when saints are edified by it, and sinners are converted under it; and in this last sense it is chiefly to be understood here: the instances of conversion were very numerous; how large must this church now be!

and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith; that is, to the Gospel, which contains things to be believed, articles of faith; proposes Christ the great object of faith; and is the means of producing faith, and which is of no profit, unless it is mixed with faith: and to obey this is cordially to embrace the doctrines of the Gospel, and cheerfully to submit to the ordinances of it. And that the priests, and a large number of them, should do this, is very marvellous; since they were the most inveterate enemies of the Gospel, and persecutors of the saints; but what is it that efficacious grace cannot do? the Syriac version instead of "priests" reads "Jews", but unsupported by any copy.

HERY, " The advancement of the church hereupon. When things were thus put into good order in the church (grievances were redressed and discontents silenced) then religion got ground, Act_6:7. 1. The word of God increased. Now that the apostles resolved to stick more closely than ever to their preaching, it spread the gospel further, and brought it home with the more power. Ministers disentangling themselves from secular employments, and addicting themselves entirely and vigorously to their work, will contribute very much, as a means, to the success of the gospel. The word of God is said to increase as the seed sown increases when it comes up again thirty, sixty, a hundred fold. 2. Christians became numerous: The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly. When Christ was upon earth, his ministry had least success in Jerusalem; yet now that city affords most converts. God has his remnant even in the worst of places. 3. A great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. Then is the word and grace of God greatly magnified when those are wrought upon by it that were least likely, as the priests here, who either had opposed it, or at least were linked in with those that had. The priests, whose preferments arose from the law of Moses, were yet willing to let them go for the gospel of Christ; and, it should seem, they came in a body;many of them agreed together, for the keeping up of one another's credit, and the strengthening of one another's hands, to join at once in giving up their names to Christ:

polis�ochlos - a great crowd of priests were, by the grace of God helped over their prejudices, and were obedient to the faith, so their conversion is described. (1.) They embraced the doctrine of the gospel; their understandings were captivated to the power of the truths of Christ, and every opposing objecting thought brought into obedience to him, 2Co_10:4, 2Co_10:5. The gospel is said to be made known for the obedience of faith, Rom_16:26. Faith is an act of obedience, for this is God's commandment, that we believe, 1Jo_3:23. (2.) They envinced the sincerity of their believing the gospel of Christ by a cheerful compliance with all the rules and precepts of the gospel. The design of the gospel is to refine and reform our hearts and lives; faith gives law to us, and we must be obedient to it.

JAMISO, "word of God increased ... disciples multiplied in Jerusalem

greatly— prosperity crowning the beautiful spirit which reigned in this mother community.

a great company of the priests were obedient, etc.— This was the crowning triumph of the Gospel, whose peaceful prosperity was now at its greatest height. After Stephen’s teaching and trial made it clear that sacerdotal interests could not stand with the Gospel, such priestly accessions became rare indeed. Note (1) how easily misunderstandings may arise among the most loving and devoted followers of the Lord Jesus: but (2) How quickly and effectually such misunderstandings may be healed, where honest intentions, love, and wisdom reign: (3) What a beautiful model for imitation is furnished by the class here complained of, who, though themselves the majority, chose the new office-bearers from amongst the complaining minority! (4) How superior to the lust of power do the apostles here show themselves to be, in not only divesting themselves of the immediate superintendence of temporal affairs in the Christian community, but giving the choice of those who were to be entrusted with it to the disciples at large! (5) How little of formal organization did the apostles give to the Church at first, and when an emergency arose which demanded something more, how entirely was the remedy suggested by the reason of the thing! (6) Though the new office-bearers are not expressly called Deacons here, it is universally admitted that this was the first institution of that order in the Church; the success of the expedient securing its permanency, and the qualifications for “the office of a Deacon” being laid down in one of the apostolical Epistles immediately after those of “a Bishop” (1Ti_3:8-13).

CALVI, "Luke setteth forth again the increasing of the Church, to the end he may the better declare the power of God and his grace in the continual going forward thereof. This was an excellent work of God that the Church should suddenly, and, as it were, in a moment, be raised up; but this is worthy no less admiration, in that he furthereth that work which he had begun amidst so many lets, in that the number of these is increased, whom to diminish, and so, consequently, to destroy the whole stock, the world doth so greatly labor. In that he saith that the Word of God did grow, his meaning is, that it was spread further abroad. The Word of God is said to grow two manner of ways; either when new disciples are brought to obey the same, or as every one of us profiteth and goeth forward therein Luke speaketh in this place of the former sort of increasing, for he expoundeth himself by and by, when he speaketh of the number of the disciples. otwithstanding, he restraineth this so great an increasing of faith unto one city. For although it be to be thought that the disciples were scattered abroad elsewhere, yet was there no certain body save only at Jerusalem.

And a great company. Seeing that (in speaking properly) our faith doth obey the doctrine of the gospel, it is a figurative speech, uttered by metonymia, when Luke saith. That they obeyed the faith; for the word faith is taken by him for the Word of God, and the very profession of Christianity. And he reckoneth up the priests by name, because they were for the most part enemies; for which cause it was a wonderful work of God that some should be converted, and much more wonderful that many. For at the first they raged against Christ with this brag, “Hath any of the rulers believed in him? But this multitude, which knoweth not the law, are accursed.”

BESO, "Acts 6:7. And the word of God increased — The matter of the complaint, and other hinderances being thus removed, and the apostles more entirely at leisure to attend to the great and peculiar duties of their office, the success of the word increased, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem was, σφοδρα, very much augmented; and a great company — Greek, πολυς οχλος, a great crowd, or multitude, of the priests were obedient to the faith — That is, they embraced the doctrine of the gospel, and evinced the sincerity of their faith in it, by a cheerful compliance with all its rules and precepts.

COFFMA, "Increased ... exceedingly ... At a number of places in Acts, namely, here, Acts 9:30; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; and 28:31, Luke paused to note the continued success of the gospel. C. H. Turner pointed out that Acts is thus cut into six panels covering, on an average, about five years each.[16]

A great company of the priests believed ... Only here is there such a declaration in the ew Testament, and the importance of the truth revealed here is superlative. First of all, here is the secret of all those episodes which took place in the homes of Pharisees, as given in Luke, there being no good reason to doubt that Luke interviewed many of those converted priests; and this student views this as by far the most likely and reasonable explanation of chapters 10-19 in Luke's gospel. In the second place, the conversion of a vast number of Pharisees would account for the savage persecution of the church by that same party, which persecution Luke was in the act of narrating. The defection of many of their own group fired the hatred of the remnant against the gospel.

The success of the gospel, however, in bringing many priests of the old order into the church was not an unmixed blessing. The presence of such a group would tend to meld the old and the new institutions, a melding that was contrary to God's will; and, in this, one may read the necessity for the divine interposition which scattered the young church from Jerusalem. Perhaps it is significant that no name of any priest who became a Christian is found in the ew Testament.

Plumptre was evidently wrong in his deduction that:

o priest is named as a follower of the Lord; and, up to this time, none had been converted by the apostles ... the new fact may be connected with the new teaching of Stephen.[17]There was no "new teaching" by Stephen, whose talent did not consist of inventing new teachings but in the skilled advocacy of the teachings "once for all" delivered to the apostles. As will appear more clearly in Stephen's speech (fully reported in Acts 6:7), there was no "new" element in it.

Obedient to the faith ... Here is another outcropping of that fundamental fact of the ew Testament, making "faith" not a subjective thing at all but an objective obedience of the gospel commandments. As De Welt said:

We must not overlook the expression, "obedient to the faith." There was something more to their faith than mere mental assent; there was something in it that demanded obedience ... repentance and baptism ... for the remission of sins.[18]"This obedience is rendered not by believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it."[19] Wherever faith is mentioned in the ew Testament as the basis of God's forgiveness, remission of sins, or justification, it is invariably an "obedient faith" which is meant. See Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26.

[16] As quoted by F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 131.

[17] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 35.

[18] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 86.

[19] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 110.

COKE, "Acts 6:7. And a great company of the priests— We learn from Ezra 2:36-39 that 4289 priests returned from the captivity; the number of whom was now probably very much increased. It is certainly wonderful that a great multitude of the priests should embrace the gospel, considering what peculiar resentments they must expect from their unbelieving brethren, and the great losses to which they must be exposed in consequence of being cast out of their office. But the grace of God was sufficient to animate and support them against every objection; and it is very probable, that the miracle of rending the veil of the temple, and the testimony of the guards to the truth of the resurrection, might contribute considerably towards their conversion, in concurrencewiththemiraculousgiftsandpowersoftheapostles;the most convincing proofs of which they saw before their eyes in their own temple.

ELLICOTT, "(7) The word of God increased.—The tense indicates gradual and continuous growth. The fact stated implies more than the increase of numbers specified in the next clause. The “word of God” is here the whole doctrine of Christ as preached by the Apostles, and, we must now add, by the Seven who are commonly known as Deacons, and there was, as the sequel shows, at this stage, what we have learnt to call an expansion and development of doctrine.

A great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.—The fact is every way significant. o priest is named as a follower of our Lord’s. one, up to this time, had been converted by the Apostles. The new fact may fairly be connected with the new teaching of Stephen. And the main feature of that teaching was, as we shall see, an anticipation of what was afterwards proclaimed more clearly by St. Paul and (if we assign the Epistle to the Hebrews to its probable author) by Apollos: that the time for sacrifices had passed away, and that the Law, as a whole, and the ritual of the Temple in particular, were decaying and waxing old, and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13). We might have thought this likely to repel the priests, and to rouse them to a fanatic frenzy. We find that it attracts them as nothing else had attracted.

To them, it may well have been, that daily round of a ritual of slaughtered victims and clouds of incense, the cutting-up of the carcases and the carriage of the offal, had become unspeakably wearisome. They felt how profitless it was to their own spiritual life, how little power there was in the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). Their profession of the new faith did not necessarily involve the immediate abandonment of their official function; but they were drifting to it as to a not far-off result, and were prepared to meet it without misgiving, perhaps with thankfulness, when it became inevitable.

PETT, "‘And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.’

The seven having been appointed this description now seals off the section. A satisfactory solution appeared to have been reached and things could now go on smoothly.

The equally satisfactory result was that ‘the word of God’ (God’s new teaching effective through the Spirit) continued to expand and spread, the number of disciples continued to multiply, and it became noticeable that large numbers of priests became followers of Jesus. This last comment was very much intended to illustrate the fact that the church was becoming the new Temple of God in preparation for Stephen’s ministry which was to follow, and brought home the success of the ministry of the Gospel among the more conservative of the Jews. A firm foundation was being laid for the future, and Luke wanted it to be recognised that in spite of what happened next, the orthodox work still carried on satisfactorily. The new Israel was firmly founded on the old.

From this point on the general ministry of the Apostles is allowed to carry on in Jerusalem unobserved by Luke (Acts 8:1) while the work is seen to expand outwards into unexpected places. And the man whom God has chosen to be the mainspring of this change was the new appointee, Stephen. one of those present could ever remotely have dreamed, as hands were laid on Stephen, a godly man bristling with faith, who was simply to help control the maintenance of the Christian poor in Jerusalem, that a revolution in thinking and activity was about to take place as a result of his faith.

‘And a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.’ Here was evidence, if such was needed, that the new ministry was firmly founded on a true Scriptural perspective. Those who were the very heart of Israel’s faith were responding to the new message and acknowledging its truth and orthodoxy. Thus, whatever followed, God had laid His seal of approval on what was happening.

It would seem quite apparent that Luke sees this as particularly significant. In a sense it was the last bastion to fall. The priests would be the most resistant to change. But now they were coming over in large numbers. the triumph of the Gospel in Jerusalem was complete.

WHEDO, "7. Increased… multiplied—In consequence of this wise action of the apostles, peace and increased prosperity returned to the Church. And this is a clear indication that the complaints of the Grecians (Hellenists) (Acts 6:1) were originally just.

Priests—The number of priests in Jerusalem even at the return of Ezra from Babylon was more than four thousand, and must have been much larger in the time of Stephen. It was a great evangelic triumph to reach this class, the hierarchy; and then the ingathering seems to have been suddenly great. A sanguine spirit might now begin to anticipate that all the priesthood, and thence all Jerusalem, and finally all Judaism, were about to accept the faith, and so Christianity about to triumph in the capital and the nation. This was the zenith of the Pentecostal Church—its moment of highest popularity just previous to its downfall. That downfall is the next event of this history.

What was the theology of the Pentecostal Church? Special interest in this question arises from the fact that Rationalists have maintained that it was Ebionitic; that is, that this first Church maintained the cessation of property, and denied the divinity and vicarious atonement of Christ. With regard to the first of these points, enough has been already said in our foregoing notes. In regard to the latter, 1. If we confine our investigation simply to Luke’s history, we shall find that Jesus was held to be enthroned at the right hand of God, (Acts 2:33-36;) the hearer of prayer, (Acts 1:24;) the sender of the Spirit, (Acts 2:33;) the receiver of the spirits of the dying, (Acts 7:59;) and the final Judge of the human race, (Acts 2:25.) Salvation is possible only through his name, (Acts 4:12.) All these things are affirmed incidentally, without any formal purpose of laying down a complete system of doctrine, and they imply, if they do not fully express, the full theology of the evangelical Church of the present day. But, 2. We are not rightfully limited to Luke’s brief history, written with no purpose of framing a doctrinal programme. We have a right to say that there is no reason to doubt that this most primitive Church held the entire doctrine taught in the entire ew Testament. We must not forget that the formers of this holy canon were members of that holy Church. Matthew and Mark, and John, and probably Luke, the four Evangelists, were all there. Peter, the author of two epistles, and James, of one, were also there. And Paul, if not there in person, was well represented by Luke, whose theology the epistles of Paul, and especially that to the Romans, may be safely held to have embodied. The Hebrew edition of the Gospel of Matthew was published, we believe, not much later than this, and that Gospel, in its baptismal formula, (xxviii, 19,) contains the fundamental trinitarian dogma. The exact relations of Christianity to the Church of the Circumcision, and the real era of the coming of Christ, inspiration itself professedly withheld from the infant Church. (See sup. note to Matthew 25.) There is no just ground to doubt, with these two exceptions, that the doctrines found by our present Evangelical Church in the ew Testament were the doctrines of Pentecostal Christianity. Early in the second century, Hegesippus, having ascertained by extensive travel, declared that one Gospel doctrine was unitedly held by all the apostolic Churches.

COSTABLE, "This verse is another one of Luke's summary progress reports that ends each major section of Acts (cf. Acts 2:47; Acts 9:31; Acts 12:24; Acts 16:6; Acts 19:20; Acts 28:31). It also corresponds to other summary paragraphs within this section of the book (cf. Acts 4:32-35; Acts 5:12-16). Luke linked the spread of God's Word with church growth. This cause and effect relationship has continued throughout history. The advances of the gospel and the responses of the people were his primary concern in Acts 3:1 to Acts 6:7. Many of the numerous priests in Jerusalem were also becoming Christians. One writer estimated that about 2,000 priests lived in Jerusalem at this time. [ote: Fiensy, p. 228.] The gospel did not win over only the "laity" in Israel.

"The ordinary priests were socially and in other ways far removed from the wealthy chief-priestly families from which the main opposition to the gospel came. Many of the ordinary priests were no doubt men holy and humble of heart, like Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, men who would be readily convinced of the truth of the gospel." [ote: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., pp. 131-32. Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem in . . ., pp. 198-213.]This pericope helps us see several very important things about the priorities of the early church. First, the church showed concern for both spiritual and physical needs. Its leaders gave priority to spiritual needs (prayer and the ministry of the Word), but they also gave attention to correcting injustice and helping the poor. This reflects the Christians' commitment to loving God wholeheartedly and loving their neighbors as themselves, God's great ethical demands. Second, the early church was willing to adapt its organizational structure and administrative procedures to minister effectively and to meet needs. It did not view its original structure and practices as binding but adapted traditional structures and methods to facilitate the proclamation of the gospel and the welfare of the church. In contrast, many churches today try to duplicate the form and functions of the early church because they feel bound to follow these. Third, the early church did not practice some things that the modern church does. Rather than blaming one another for the problem that arose, the disciples corrected the injustice and continued to give prayer and the ministry of the Word priority. Rather than paternalistically feeling that they had to maintain control over every aspect of church life, the apostles delegated authority to a group within the church (that had the greatest vested interest) and let them solve the distribution problem. [ote: Longenecker, pp. 331-32.]

Acts 6:7 concludes Luke's record of the witness in Jerusalem. From that city the gospel spread out into the rest of Judea, and it is that expansion that Luke emphasized in the chapters that follow next.

PULPIT, "Convincing testimonies to the force of the new faith.

"And a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." The obedience of "a great company of the priests to the faith" was beyond a doubt, in the nature of things, a commanding witness to the force of that faith. When that faith made its

successful assault upon the serried ranks of such "a company," and persuaded the throwing away of weapons so peculiarly their own, and endeared to them by an almost inveterate attachment, a great victory was won. The glory and especially the moral impressiveness of victory will often be proportioned in the directest manner, not to the strength only, but to the very nature of the opposing forces. Special mention is made of the triumph of the gospel over this "great company of priests," not without good reason. In addition to the usual causes of the enmity of the human heart to the "faith" of Jesus Christ, and which must in all cases be triumphed over, others were present here, and such as asked a strong hand to overmaster them. otice, therefore, that "the obedience to the faith" of those here spoken of was—

I. A TRIUMPH OVER THE DIFFICULT FOE THAT GOES BY THE AME OF PREJUDICE. It is very clear that, let alone any of the forms of class prejudice, prejudice itself, pure and simple, was at the root of a very large preponderance of the enmity shown to Christ and his "faith" on the part of all those who would make any assumption of superior knowledge or position. Settled on the lees of self, they had no relish for anything that tended to disturb their opinion of self. And this bred more of prejudice toward Christ and his truth than of anything else, while the mischief of prejudice answers to no name more appropriately than the name Legion. The assumption of knowledge, of goodness, of superiority, was the native element of the priest in the days of Christ's flesh and of his apostles. Against assumption of this kind any one or anything that dared self-assertion dared at the same time the prompt encounter of prejudice the most unreasoning.

II. A TRIUMPH OVER THE JEALOUS FOE OF PROFESSIOALISM.

1. The simplicity alike of the life and of the doctrine of Christ would sin, from a priest's point of view, against his own faith in professionalism.

2. The unmistakable language of Christ, in reference to the overthrow or the superseding of an order of religious officers, forms, ceremonies, and sacrifices, would clearly sin against the same.

3. The very genius of the character of Christ would be felt to militate unerringly against it, however feebly that genius might be appreciated.

III. A TRIUMPH OVER THE BIGOTED AD MALIG FOE OF PRIESTISM, The love of the priest's office was one of the devoutest feelings with the true priest. As the office lay with an appointed class in the constitution of the Jewish people, we cannot say that individual preference or bent of disposition decided who should bear it. While no constitutional predilection determined the Jew's choice of the ecclesiastic profession, it makes perhaps more distinctly visible the effect of the office upon him and his character. And very visible for had was this effect in the time of our Savior, when an earnest and devout priest was the exception. The love and simplicity and devoutness of the true priest was indeed "precious in those days." And certain it is, for whatever reason, that "chief priests and elders "led the opposition to Jesus, created it, and for the most part utterly constituted it. The same

parts they sustained towards the apostles now from day to day. Moral blindness and moral insensitiveness are the con-stunt avengers of the temper. Two things go far to explain why it should be so.

1. The confident and familiar tampering with unseen realities is one. The conventional temper will dogmatically pronounce upon the things which ask for the more reverent touch in that they are unseen and must be largely unknown.

2. Its pride is to intrude into that most sacred domain, the domain of the innermost life of others. The saying might have been made for it that it "rushes in where angels would fear to tread." And for a bold challenge like this, no one who has at all observed the phenomena of man's moral nature can for a moment doubt that the recoil must be perilously dangerous. "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed on him?" was a question that came, in point of fact, from the lips of a Pharisee (John 7:48), but for all that was the unwitting tell-tale of saddest and surest facts, deep down in the moral nature of himself and of his most intimately related associates, the priests. And they amounted to self-blight's confession—the self-blight that came of profane presumptuousness towards Heaven and arrogant assumption towards the spiritual life of their fellow-men, and that consisted of ingrained inveteracy of prejudice, infolded affections, and shriveled sympathies. To throw life and a healthy beat into the hearts of such men has ever been beyond human resources. They have been hopeless of the hopeless, and despair has been most familiar with their face. The sovereign touch alone can reach their case. Great, then, was the victory of the faith on this occasion, for they were "priests," and they were "a great company of priests" over whom it prevailed. The force of Jesus prevails betimes over every worst form and every worst degree of evil in human nature. Why it does not always is a question to which man knows not the answer, or at all events not the explanation of the answer. But that force did prevail now, and it made a great day and great joy. Greatest of all, however, was the mercy that sped not by, but now rested on the wing and alighted with the gift of salvation for this unlikeliest company. Let it be the light of hope and the encouragement of effort for those who work, amid the darkest, blankest, hardest material. ot less should this touch of history warn with most ominous suggestion all those whose native bias, whose solemn profession, whose self-undertaken series of duties, charge them with the dreadest responsibility, not in its bearing on others only, but "chiefly" and "first" on themselves.—B.

Stephen Seized

8 ow Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.

BARES, "And Stephen - The remarkable death of this first Christian martyr, which soon occurred, gave occasion to the sacred writer to give a detailed account of his character, and of the causes which led to his death. Hitherto the opposition of the Jews had been confined to threats and imprisonment; but it was now to burst forth with furious rage and madness, that could be satisfied only with blood. This was the first in a series of persecutions against Christians which filled the church with blood, and which closed the lives of thousands, perhaps a million, in the great work of establishing the gospel on the earth.

Full of faith - Full of “confidence” in God, or trusting entirely to his promises. See the notes on Mar_16:16.

And power - The power which was evinced in working miracles.

Wonders - This is one of the words commonly used in the New Testament to denote miracles.

CLARKE, "Stephen, full of faith and power - Instead of πι̣εως, faith, χαριτος, grace, is the reading of ABD, several others, the Syriac of Erpen, the Coptic, Armenian, Vulgate, and some of the fathers. This reading Griesbach has admitted into the text. Some MSS. join both readings. Stephen was full of faith - gave unlimited credence to the promises of his Lord; he was full of grace - receiving the fulfillment of those promises, he enjoyed much of the unction of the Divine Spirit, and much of the favor of his God; and,

in consequence, he was full of power, δυναµεως, of the Divine energy by which he was enabled to work great wonders and miracles among the people.

GILL, "And Stephen, full of faith and power,.... The historian proceeds to give a narrative of Stephen particularly, the first of the seven deacons; of his faith and miracles, of his elocution and wisdom, of his courage and intrepidity, of his constancy, and of his suffering martyrdom. He is said to be full of faith, as before, Act_6:5 the Alexandrian copy, and four of Beza's copies read, "full of grace"; and so do the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions; the Ethiopic version reads, "full of the grace of God": he had an uncommon share of it; it was exceeding abundant in him; he had a sufficiency of it for the service and sufferings he was called to: and he was full of power to preach the Gospel, and teach it the people, which he did with authority; to defend it, and oppose the adversaries of it; to bear reproach and indignities for it, and even death itself; and to do miraculous works for the confirmation of it, as follows:

did great wonders and miracles among the people; openly before them, such as speaking with divers tongues, healing diseases, casting out devils, &c.

HERY, "Stephen, no doubt was diligent and faithful in the discharge of his office as distributor of the church's charity, and laid out himself to put that affair in a good method, which he did to universal satisfaction; and though it appears here that he was a man of uncommon gifts, and fitted for a higher station, yet, being called to that office, he did not think it below him to do the duty of it. And, being faithful in a little, he was entrusted with more; and, though we do not find him propagating the gospel by preaching and baptizing, yet we find him here called out to very honourable services, and owned in them.

I. He proved the truth of the gospel, by working miracles in Christ's name, Act_6:8. 1. He was full of faith and power, that is, of a strong faith, by which he was enabled to do great things. Those that are full of faith are full of power, because by faith the power of God is engaged for us. His faith did so fill him that it left no room for unbelief and made room for the influences of divine grace, so that, as the prophet speaks, he was full of power by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts,Mic_3:8. By faith we are emptied of self, and so are filled with Christ, who is the wisdom of God and the power of God. 2. Being so he did great wonders and miracles among the people, openly, and in the sight of all; for Christ's miracles feared not the strictest scrutiny. It is not strange that Stephen, though he was not a preacher by office, did these great wonders, for we find that these were distinct gifts of the Spirit, and divided severally, for to one was given the working of miracles, and to another prophecy, 1Co_12:10, 1Co_12:11. And these signs followed not only those that preached, but those that believed. Mar_16:17

JAMISO, "Act_6:8-15. Stephen arraigned before the Sanhedrim.

And Stephen, etc.— The foregoing narrative seems to be only an introduction to what follows.

full of faith— rather, “of grace,” as the best manuscripts read.

CALVI, "8.And Stephen Luke reciteth in this place a new combat of the Church, whereby it appeareth that the glory of the gospel was always joined with the cross and divers troubles. And this is the sum, that the Church was assaulted in the person of one man. Whereby it came to pass that the enemies were the more bold, and being imbrued with innocent blood, did rage sorer than they had wont; for they had not gone as yet beyond the prison and rods. But to the end we may know that the name of Christ was glorified as well in the life as in the death of Stephen, Luke saith at the first, that he wasfull of faith and power. Whereby he signifieth that his faith was excellent, and that he excelled in power to do miracles. either ought we to imagine perfection of faith, because he is said to be full of faith; but this manner of speaking is much used in the Scripture, to call those full of the gifts of God who are abundantly endued with the same. I takepower (without question) for ability to do miracles. Faith comprehendeth not only the gift of understanding, but also the ferventness of zeal. Forasmuch as his name was famous by reason of his excellency, it came thereby to pass that the rage of the wicked was bent against him, as it were, with one consent, to overthrow him. (354) For so soon as the force and grace of the Spirit doth show itself, the fury of Satan is by and by provoked.

And it shall appear by the text that Stephen was diligent and courageous in spreading abroad the doctrine of the gospel; but Luke passeth over that, being content to have commended his faith, which could not be slothful and sluggish.

BESO, "Acts 6:8-10. And Stephen, full of faith and power — That is, of a strong faith, by which he was enabled to do extraordinary things. They that are full of faith are full of power, because, by faith the power of God is engaged for us. Some valuable copies, however, read χαριτος, grace, instead of πιστεως, faith. Did great wonders and miracles among the people — Did them openly, and in the sight of all: for Christ’s miracles feared not the strictest scrutiny. We need not wonder that Stephen, though not a preacher by office, should do these great wonders; for the gifts of the Spirit were divided among the disciples as God pleased: and the power of working miracles was a gift distinct from that of prophesying or preaching, and bestowed on some to whom the latter was not given, 1 Corinthians 12:10-11. And our Lord promised that the signs of miracles should not only follow them that preached, but them that believed, Mark 16:17. Then there arose certain of the synagogue of the Libertines — So they were styled, whose fathers were once slaves, and afterward made free. This was the case of many Jews, who had been taken captive by the Romans, under Pompey, and carried into Italy, and Cyrenians, &c. — It was one and the same synagogue, which consisted of these several nations. Saul of Cilicia was, doubtless, a member of it. Disputing with Stephen — Arguing with him concerning his doctrine, with a view to prevent the success of his preaching. But such was the force of his reasoning, that they were not able to resist the wisdom, &c. — They could neither support their own arguments nor answer his. He proved Jesus to be the Christ by such irresistible arguments, and delivered himself with so much clearness and evidence, that they had nothing of any weight to object against what he advanced: though they were not convinced, yet they were confounded. It is not said, they were not able to resist him, but to resist the wisdom and the Spirit —That is, the Spirit of wisdom which spake by him. They thought they only disputed with Stephen, and could make their cause good against him; but they were disputing with the Spirit of God in him, for whom they were an unequal match. ow was fulfilled that promise, I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist, Luke 21:15.

COFFMA, "o record of specific signs has come down to us; but the fact of their designation here as "great" proves them to have been miracles of the first magnitude. Stephen was a man of the most noble character and of the mightiest ability, "the morning star who ushered in the dawn of St. Paul's ministry!"[20] This verse is "the first indication of miracles worked by any (of our Lord's followers) except the apostles of the Lord Jesus."[21] Even these signs, however, were not done apart from the apostles, because it was through the laying on of their hands that Stephen had received such powers.

[20] G. B. F. Hallock, Doran's Ministers Manual (Garden City, ew York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1930), p. 579.

[21] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 44.

PETT, "Stephen Disputes With Hellenist Jews And Is Falsely Accused (6:8-15).

‘And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people.’

Compare here Acts 4:33 where the Apostles were said to speak with great grace and power. Stephen possessed similar divine assistance to the Apostles. And through that divine help he wrought great wonders and signs among the people, the wonders and signs which were so much a part of the new inundation of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 2:43; Acts 4:30; Acts 5:12; Acts 8:6; Acts 8:13; Acts 14:3). It was now apparent that not only had the Apostles laid hands on him, God had also laid hands on him with a special ministry in view.

This might suggest that Christians placed in positions of authority in those early days did expect God also to work through them in these ways. They were seen as adjuncts to their ministry.

Verses 8-60The Preaching and Martyrdom of Stephen (6:8-7:60).

It is one of the exciting things about serving God that we never know what He is going to do next. In Acts 6:1-7 the Apostles had rid themselves of the administrative burden of ‘serving tables’ and dealing with the administration of food to needy Hellenistic Christians, by appointing seven men to perform the task, one of whom was named Stephen. Little did they dream that God would then choose to take Stephen and give him a ministry similar to that of the Apostles. And even less did anyone realise that shortly he would be promoted to glory by way of martyrdom.

Stephen was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian (essentially Greek speaking and previously attendant at synagogues where Greek was basically used) and his ideas and interpretations of the Old Testament were therefore probably more liberal than those of the Hebraic Jewish Christians, although we must not make too much of this for what he would shortly say in his defence was perfectly orthodox.

But it may help to explain why he caused a furore where the Apostles had not. The Hellenistic Jews in general may well have laid less emphasis on the centrality of the Temple and its accompanying ritual, interpreting the Scriptures more allegorically (as Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, certainly did in Alexandria). On the other hand the Apostles, centring their message on Christ, and on what He had come to do and finally accomplish, seemingly otherwise kept common cause with their Jewish brethren. Their present view was of a transformed Judaism, responsive to Jesus Christ. They had not yet considered wider issues.

Stephen appears to have stressed that in Christ ‘the land’ and the Temple had ceased to hold a position of prime importance. ow it was Christ, coming as the Saviour of men, Who was to take central stage. And the thoughts of men should

therefore be more centred on Him than on Temple ritual. It was not that he abandoned the Temple completely. It was that he deprecated the hold that it had on people, when he felt that their focus should be centred on Christ. These are the ideas that will shortly come to the fore in his final defence. Men, he declares, should not be looking to the land, or to the Temple, they should be looking to God’s great Deliverer.

Thus as a Hellenist he went to synagogues in Jerusalem which the Apostles had probably little touched, for there were many synagogues of all shades of opinion in Jerusalem. But one thing is certainly clear. His declaration of the faith was powerfully effective.

Up to this point the main opponents of the new born church have been the Sadducees, for the witness of the church appears to have been focussed through the Temple, although they had no doubt taken up opportunities to speak elsewhere. However, on the whole the Pharisees appear to have tolerated them. But now Stephen would take his witness into the synagogues in no uncertain fashion, and there he would be in direct confrontation with the Pharisees. Thus the Sadducean opposition would now be bolstered by the Pharisees.

BARCLAY, "A CHAMPIO OF FREEDOM ARISES (Acts 6:8-15)

The Church's appointment of these seven men had far-reaching consequences. In essence the great struggle had begun. The Jews always looked on themselves as the chosen people; but they had interpreted chosen in the wrong way, regarding themselves as chosen for special privilege and believing that God had no use for any other nation. At their worst they declared that God had created the Gentiles to be fuel for the fires of hell; at their mildest they believed that some day the Gentiles would become their servants. They never dreamed that they were chosen for service to bring all men into the same relationship with God as they themselves enjoyed.

Here was the thin end of the wedge. This is not yet a question of bringing in the Gentiles. It is Greek-speaking Jews who are involved. But not one of the seven has a Jewish name; and one of them, icolaos, was a Gentile who had accepted the Jewish faith. And Stephen had a vision of a world for Christ. To the Jews two things were specially precious--the Temple, where alone sacrifice could be offered and God could be truly worshipped and the Law which could never be changed. Stephen, however, said that the Temple must pass away, that the Law was but a stage towards the gospel and that Christianity must go out to the whole wide world. one could withstand his arguments and so the Jews resorted to force and Stephen was arrested. His career was to be short; but he was the first to see that Christianity was not the perquisite of the Jews but God's offer to all the world.

COSTABLE, "A. The martyrdom of Stephen 6:8-8:1aLuke presented the events surrounding Stephen's martyrdom in Jerusalem next. He did so to explain the means God used to scatter the Christians and the gospel from Jerusalem into Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. This record

also throws more light on the spiritual strength and vitality of the church at this time. Stephen's experiences as recorded here resemble those of our Lord, as Peter's did in the earlier chapters. Witherington listed 10 parallels between the passions of Jesus and Stephen. [ote: Witherington, p. 253.]

Verse 8Stephen was full of grace (cf. cf. Acts 4:33; Luke 4:22) and power (cf. Acts 2:22; Acts 4:33) as well as the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5), wisdom (Acts 6:3), and faith (Acts 6:5). His ability to perform miracles seems unrelated to his having been appointed as one of the Seven (Acts 6:5; cf. Acts 21:8). Jesus and the Twelve were not the only ones who had the ability to perform miracles (cf. Acts 2:22; Acts 2:43; Acts 5:12).

Verses 8-31II. THE WITESS I JUDEA AD SAMARIA 6:8-9:31

In this next major section of Acts, Luke narrated three significant events in the life and ministry of the early church. These events were the martyrdom of Stephen, the ministry of Philip, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Luke's presentation of these events was primarily biographical. In fact, he began his account of each event with the name of its major character (Acts 6:8; Acts 8:5; Acts 9:1). The time when these events took place was probably shortly after those reported in the preceding chapters of the book.

BURKITT, "Observe here, The great character given of St. Stephen; a man full of the grace of God, full of faith, full of power to work miracles, mighty in word and deed; able to do all things, and to suffer all things through Christ that strengthened him.

Observe, 2. The violent opposition which this good man met with in the way of his duty.

He is, 1. Encountered by disputation with the heads of five colleges in Jerusalem, namely, Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiaties.

Behold here, an admirable act kept, wherein St. Stephen was the respondent against whom opponents appeared from all parts of the then known world; but all too few to resist the wisdom and Spirit by which he spake. He asserted the truth so convincingly, that all his opposites had no power to oppose him. See here how faithful Christ was in fulfilling of his promise, I will give you a mouth and wisdom, Which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or oppose Luke 21:15.

2. His adversaries being baffled in their disputes, they burn with revenge; they hire men to accuse him falsely, that they might take away his life. The best arguments of a baffled adversary are ever found to be craft and cruelty: it has been and old artifice of the devil, to swear innocent men out of their lives: And therefore it is next to a miracle, that no greater number of innocent persons have been murdered in the

world by perjury and false accusation; when so many thousands hate them, who make no conscience of false oaths.

Observe, 3. The charge and accusation brought against Stephen, that he spake dishonourably of the Jewish religion, that he was continually foretelling destruction to the temple, and threatening the change of all the Mosaic rites. It is very probable, that he told them the shadows and ceremonies were to vanish, now the substance was come; and that the Mosaic rites were to give place, that a more excellent and spiritual worship might succeed. For as God was worshipped aright four hundred years before either tabernacle or temple were built, or the Jewish rites instituted: So he might again be truly worshipped after they were abolished.

Observe, lastly, How almighty God, by a miracle, bears witness to the innocency of his holy servant St. Stephen; and to convince his accusers, that he had done no wrong to Moses, God makes his face to shine now as Moses's face had shined of old, and gave him an angelical countenance, in which appeared an extraordinary lustre and radiancy; not that an angel has a face, or shines visibly; but it intimates that amazing brightness of beauty which was instamped upon the face of Stephen. He now began to border upon heaven, and had received some beams of glory approaching: It pleaseth God sometimes to give his children and servants some prelibations and foretastes of heaven before they step into heaven, especially holy martyrs and confessors, who love not their live unto death: to his name and truth; and as they shall shine forth in the kingdom of their Father, so will God sometimes put a lustre upon their faces here: All in the council saw St. Stephen's face, as it had been the face of an angel.

PULPIT 8-15, "The service of the lip and the glory of the countenance.

The wise step of appointing seven deacons "to serve tables," and thus to liberate the apostles for prayer and preaching, like other good causes, had results which reached beyond the first object of it. It led to the formation of a most useful body of men, who have served Christ and his Church in other things beside mere "tables 'or temporalities. It brought out Stephen; and who shall say how much that had to do with the conversion of Saul, and so with the evangelization and enlightenment of the world? We learn—

I. THAT THE FAITHFUL DISCHARGE OF THE LOWER DUTY WILL LEAD TO ETRUSTMET WITH A HIGHER OE. (Acts 6:8, Acts 6:9.) Stephen, having acquitted himself well as a deacon, and showing powers of speech and argument, was encouraged to visit the synagogues, and there "dispute" on behalf of Christian truth. And not only so, but God honored him as the channel of his Divine healing power, and he "did great wonders and miracles among the people" It is always wise to begin at or near the bottom of the scale; to do the simplest thing well, and then rise to that which is next above it. It is well, in Christian service as in secular callings and in the affairs of state, to go through the various grades until the higher and perhaps the highest are reached. Faithful work in a humbler sphere will

fit for useful and honorable service in a higher; this is true of our life on earth, and will doubtless prove true respecting the life which is to come (Matthew 13:12; Luke 16:10).

II. THAT IS THE SERVICE OF CHRIST WE MUST DEPED FOR POWER WITH ME O GRACE FROM GOD. Stephen was full of" grace and power" (Acts 6:8); full of power with men because full of grace from God. From the Divine resources there came down heavenly influences into his soul—illumination, sanctity, zeal—and he was strong to interest, to instruct, to convince, to persuade. We shall remain unsuccessful as workers for Christ, however great our natural gifts may be, except we have grace from on high to penetrate and possess our soul, and we be endued "with all might by his Spirit in the inner man."

III. THAT CHRISTIA COTROVERSY HAS ITS PLACE I SACRED SERVICE. Stephen "disputed" with the Hellenistic Jews in the synagogues (Acts 6:9), and so effectively that "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake" Statement of Christian doctrine and enforcement of Christian truth may take higher rank, in usefulness, than the defense of Christian theology; but the latter has its place in the field of sacred service, and those who work elsewhere should not disparage or decry it. Everything in its time and in its turn.

IV. THAT ERROR, WHE IT IS SEATED I THE SOUL, IS OFTE OLY AGGRAVATED BY THE EXHIBITIO OF THE TRUTH. (Acts 6:11-14.) These men who were in the wrong, instead of being enlightened and benefited by Stephen's forcible exposition, were led into folly and sin. They hired others to give testimony which was virtually if not literally false, and they did their best to compass the violent death of the man who was seeking to lead them into the kingdom of truth and life. When men are not only wrong in theory, but also bad at heart, interested in maintaining that which is false, any endeavor to enlighten them will often fan the flame of their folly and rouse to its fullest exercise the perversity which is in their souls.

V. THAT DEVOTEDESS IS SOMETIMES RADIAT WITH HEAVELY BRIGHTESS. (Verse15.) We may Continue to dispute whether the "angel-face" of Stephen was natural or supernatural radiance. It matters little; but it is of consequence to know that the higher Christian graces will write their sign upon our countenance. As sin makes its sad and shameful traces on the frame, so purity, faith, love, devotion, will make the face to be aglow with heavenly light. othing but a devoted Christian life could give us such angel-faces as some of those which we see worshipping in our sanctuaries and laboring in our holy fields of love.—C.

PULPIT 8-15, "Stephen's work and witness.

I. HIS SPIRIT DESCRIBED. "Full of grace and power." We can feel rather than define the force of those words. Grace is first the favor of God felt in the man's soul, then manifested in his whole bearing, tone, conversation, and way of life. The effect is like the cause; the recipient of Divine favor makes a deeply favorable impression

upon others. Power, again, is the Divine will making itself felt in the man as his will; and the effect is powerful upon others. Thus Stephen was a man felt to be spiritually original.

II. HIS ACTIVITY DESCRIBED. He wrought "signs and wonders" of an extraordinary kind among the people. The Jew craved signs and wonders, and from long habit and education was accustomed to see in these the great evidence of a Divine mission. But true faith is never without power to work some kind of wonders. Moral wonders are the most impressive and the most evidential.

III. THE RISE OF OPPOSITIO TO HIM. Jealousy as usual, and envy, must have prompted it. The most fruitful lives invite most criticism. "Stones are not thrown except at the fruit-laden tree," says the proverb.

1. Its character: disputatious. School wit and wisdom are brought to bear against him. When facts cannot be denied, nor made the foundation of charges, fancies are found to be convenient as material of attack. The man who is mighty in deed shall, if possible, be shown an imbecile in argument, a tyro in knowledge. But there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in school philosophy; and the power of God and wisdom of God in his servants set at naught the "disputer" of the world.

2. Its failure. The dialecticians were met by simple spiritual wisdom. It was a plain story that Stephen had to tell; its very simplicity and dignity foiled these debaters.

IV. FALSE ACCUSATIOS. From sophistry to positive lies it is an easy step. If dishonesty is in a man's use of words and arguments, he will be likely to carry it out in deeds. If we bribe our reason in the interests of passion, why should we hesitate to corrupt the minds of others? Bribed testimony may produce a great effect for a time. It can craftily be made closely to resemble the truth. If a teacher upholds the spirit of Scripture, he may be represented with the ignorant as despising its letter. The charge of "speaking evil against Moses and God" must have been made color-able. Stephen taught that the old dispensation was in decay, and that the temple must pass away. This was easily misrepresented as speaking against the temple and the old institutions. The institutions of God are living, therefore must grow, and change their forms from age to age. To assert the necessity of change may be perverted to mean the assertion of the necessity of overthrow. The highest teaching is ever most liable to misrepresentation. It cannot respect men's vested interests. And interest, with all the "hell-deep instincts" which rally in support of it, can ever find plausible arguments against the innovator. Stephen's experience repeats that of Jesus and anticipates that of Paul.

V. SUCCESS OF THE PLOT. The people were deeply moved; the temple and all its sacred associations in religion and national feeling were threatened, as they thought. The Sanhedrim, the "elders and scribes," trembled for their power. Stephen was apprehended and brought before them. The false witnesses repeat their story. Though doubtless verbally true, it was in spirit false. That Jesus of azareth should

"dissolve the sacred place and change the old religious customs" was indeed the sublime truth in a sentence. Christianity dissolves Judaism—by fulfilling it. To break up one home to found another is not to destroy the first home. To cast off an old garment because a new one is needed and at hand, is not to discredit the old. Destruction absolute and final is different from abolition with a view to progress. The witnesses were thus near to the truth, yet far from it. When opposites meet, the idea of dissolution and that of life, the hall-truth may be the most malicious of lies.

VI. THE DEMEAOUR OF STEPHE. It was a moment of great trial. The people were now again united with their rulers. The Sanhedrim no longer feared to go against the general feeling. It was "Stephen against the world." Among all the eyes fastened upon him there was probably no friendly glance. Yet at this moment, like the sun breaking through the blackness of a thunder-cloud, a glory of unearthly splendor irradiated the brow of the witness. In such moments God chooses to show his love to his chosen. Forsaken—not forsaken; cast down—not destroyed; fettered and hemmed in on every side—yet free; such is the experience of the soul that confides in God. It throws itself in the extremity of its helplessness at the feet of God—nay, upon his very breast. ever do we know what heights and depths are in the kingdom of spirit, till we are thrust into them by the frowns or the force that bars all other ways. The spirit touches its height of triumph and joy in the very moment when the man to outward appearance is lost. And there are brief moments when God reveals his presence in a manner not to be forgotten on that noblest of his mirrors, the human countenance. God's eagles rise in the storm; his stars shine in the darkest night. Compare the face of Stephen with that of Moses (2 Corinthians 3:7, 2 Corinthians 3:8). We learn from Stephen:

1. The might that comes to man through faith and the Holy Spirit; ability to work, to witness, to suffer.

2. The glory of the martyr. Accused, God favors him; slandered, the truth is illustrated by him; overcome and overclouded, he rises and he shines like the sun in his strength.—J.

OTES, "Here is a positive proof that one can be a great man of God and still die young. It is not a sign of God’s disapproval for one to be cut off early in life. God does not always deliver from temporal opposition.

Full of grace-full of inner favor of God which comes out in positive and powerful action. He was full of charm and attractiveness to God. He was radiant and impressive. Rees, “There are times when the strength to express ourselves for Christ must be matched by the strength silently to endure for Christ. o back talk, no recrimination, no clamorous self-defense, just bearing it, as Jesus did before Herod.” He faced a murderous mob with a beautiful attitude.

Could the other six do the same wonders and have the same spirit? After Stephen laymen became key factors in the rest of church history, and Paul is a great

example.

HAWKER 8-15, "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. (9) Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. (10) And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. (11) Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. (12) And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, (13) And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: (14) For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. (15) And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

We here enter upon the interesting history of Stephen, the first of the seven brethren, in the government of the Church under the Apostles, and the first martyr in the Church of Christ, after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. It is evident, that Stephen preached, as well as did wonders and miracles among the people; for we read, that those who opposed him, were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit, with which he spake. But the most important point for us to consider is, what blasphemy it was, with which these foes to Christ, and to his people, charged him? I conceive this to be no unimportant point, For if, as I am inclined to believe, Stephen died a martyr to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus, it will throw a light upon this part of the Church’s history, and serve to teach us, that this glorious truth, which is the very foundation of our holy faith, was then, as in modern times it hath since been, what infidelity most revolts at.

If the Reader will gather into one point of view, the several charges before the council brought against Stephen, and. consider them a little attentively, he wilt perceive that the whole together were four in number. First, Blasphemous words against Moses, Secondly, Against God. Thirdly, Blasphemous words against this holy place, meaning most probably, the temple; or, perhaps, the city of Jerusalem, called the holy city in which the temple stood, Mat_27:53. And, fourthly, Against the law. Now, by analyzing these several and distinct charges, and examining them, one by one, under their respective heads, we shall be enabled to form a clear apprehension of the ground upon which the council acted, when stoning Stephen, according to the Jewish law, for the supposed blasphemy.

And, first, concerning the blasphemous words against Moses. It is, indeed, an extraordinary, and to this time an unheard of accusation, to talk of blasphemy against a man. For nothing can be called blasphemy, except it hath the Lord for its object. Blasphemy, is peculiarly, and specially, a sin against Him. But here was the drift of their resentment. Stephen had said, that the Lord Jesus would change the customs, that is, the rites, which Moses had delivered to the people. Indeed, the Lord had done it. Those rites were only shadowy representations, and Christ himself was the substance ; and as such, the whole of Moses’ institutions, having accomplished the end for which they were originally appointed, did of themselves cease. But, as this doctrine implied, that Moses was the servant of Christ, and consequently God; He who was with the angel, (as he told them in the following chapter,) when speaking to Moses from the bush; (Act_7:38) the conclusion became undeniable, that Christ was God; and this they deemed blasphemy. I pray the Reader to turn to Heb_3:5-6.

The second charge of blasphemy against God, could have been no other than the ascribing divine honors to the Lord Jesus Christ. And if the Reader will in this place, by way of ascertaining more, clearly the matter of fact, anticipate in some measure Stephen’s history, by turning to the close of it, towards the end of the next chapter, (Act_7:56-58) he will immediately perceive, by what this faithful servant of the Lord then said, how firm his mind must have been in the belief of Christ’s Godhead. We there find him exclaiming in a rapture of holy joy, and regardless of all around him, that he saw the Lord Jesus in person, as the Shechinah in the Old Testament, which manifested the presence of the Lord, used to appear; and nothing could be more decisive in proof, that Stephen considered Christ as God. Indeed his enemies themselves so interpreted Stephen’s words, and as such, unable to suppress their indignation, they dragged him instantly from before the council, and stoned him with stones till he died. Nothing, surely, can be more full in point, that Stephen died a martyr to the profession of the Godhead of Christ. See Lev_14:6; Lev_14:23; 1Ki_21:13; Deu_17:2-7.

For the third of those charges against Stephen, namely, blasphemous words in relation to the temple, or the city, we may consider this as in some degree included in the former, being by a necessary consequence implicated in it. For, if the Lord Jesus would destroy the temple, it implied the divinity of his nature in the deed. Indeed Christ had predicted the destruction of it, Mat_24:1-2. But then it was for rejecting him, Luk_19:44. And, therefore, here also was an indirect acknowledgment of Stephens faith in the Godhead of the Lord Jesus.. Stephen, as a Jew, would have been equally shocked, as those carnal Jews were, at the idea of any one destroying their beloved city and temple. But Christ as God, in the faith of Stephen, not only reconciled that, and every other event which the Lord appointed, but gave him an holy joy, in contemplating the sovereignty of Jesus.

And, lastly, for the fourth of those charges; blasphemous words against the law; the very introduction of the Gospel, in superseding the law, became blasphemy in the extreme in the eyes of a Jew. And as none but He who gave the law could have authority to do away the law, by so much, while Stephen asserted that Christ would change the customs, which Moses delivered; plainly he asserted also, that Christ was God. So that each, and everyone of those charges, to which they annexed the crime of blasphemy, most evidently prove their views of the faith of Stephen. He stood forth a firm champion for the Godhead of Christ; and it was for this supposed blasphemy, for which he was stoned. Indeed, in the very moment of his death, he committed his soul into the hands of the Lord Jesus as God. Lord Jesus! (said he,) receive my spirit? Act_7:59.

I stay not to notice, (though highly meriting our notice, in respect to the Lord’s tender regard to his faithful servant,) what is said in the close of this chapter, of the bright countenance of Stephen, like an angel, which all in the council, it is said, beheld. I cannot speak upon it with any decision. As such, I rather decline any observations, than to run the hazard of speaking presumptuously. But, I would just humbly ask, might it not have been similar to the case of Moses, when in the Mount, Exo_34:29-30. And, if so, were not both instances, Moses and Stephen, from the same Lord Jesus? But, as God the Holy Ghost hath not been pleased to record anything further than the fact itself, it becomes us not to enquire. But of one point we are taught, and in which we cannot err. Stephen was here engaged in his Lord’s cause; and for the testimony of Jesus, he was brought before the council. Hence Christ’s promise, Luk_21:12-15. Very blessed is it, therefore, to discover, as in the case of Stephen, that a suited grace is always dispensed, as the circumstances of the Lord’s tried ones shall require. As thy day is, thy strength shall be. Reader! let you and I take occasion from this view of Stephen, to calculate upon it for every hour of need, and especially like his, for the hour of death. Oh! for the Lord in that season to be eminently present, as he assuredly will, with all his re deemed. Lord! lift

thou up the light of thy countenance upon my soul! that when I awake up, I shall be satisfied with thy likeness, and behold thy face in righteousness!

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "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 chapters 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 chapters 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 (Luk_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 (Act_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 (Isa_11:1-16.)—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 Joh_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.)

9 Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen.

BARES, "Then there arose - That is, they stood up against him, or they opposed him.

Of the synagogue - See the notes on Mat_4:23. The Jews were scattered in all parts of the world. In every place they would have synagogues. But it is also probable that there would be enough foreign Jews residing at Jerusalem from each of those places to maintain the worship of the synagogue; and at the great feasts, those synagogues adapted to Jewish people of different nations would be attended by those who came up

to attend the great feasts. It is certain that there was a large number of synagogues in Jerusalem. The common estimate is, that there were four hundred and eighty in the city (Lightfoot; Vitringa).

Of the Libertines - There has been very great difference of opinion about the meaning of this word. The chief opinions may be reduced to three:

1. The word is Latin, and means properly a “freedman,” a man who had been a slave and was set at liberty. Many have supposed that these persons were manumitted slaves of Roman origin, but who had become proselyted to the Jewish religion, and who had a synagogue in Jerusalem. This opinion is not very probable; though it is certain, from Tacitus (Ann., lib. 2:c. 85), that there were many persons of this description at Rome. He says that 4,000 Jewish proselytes of Roman slaves made free were sent at one time to Sardinia.

2. A second opinion is, that these persons were Jews by birth, and had been taken captives by the Romans, and then set at liberty, and were thus called “freedmen” or “liberties.” That there were many Jews of this description there can be no doubt. Pompey the Great, when he subjugated Judea, sent large numbers of the Jews to Rome (Philo, In Legat. a.d. Caium). These Jews were set at liberty at Rome, and assigned a place beyond the Tiber for a residence. See Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans. These persons are by Philo called “libertines,” or “freedmen” (Kuinoel, in loco). Many Jews were also conveyed as captives by Ptolemy I. to Egypt, and obtained a residence in that country and the vicinity.

3. Another opinion is, that they took their name from some “place” which they occupied. This opinion is more probable from the fact that all the “other” persons mentioned here are named from the countries which they occupied. Suidas says that this is the name of a place. And in one of the fathers this passage occurs: “Victor, Bishop of the Catholic Church at Libertina, says, unity is there, etc.” from this passage it is plain that there was a place called “Libertina.” That place was in Africa, not far from ancient Carthage. See Dr. Pearce’s Commentary on this place.

Cyrenians - Jews who dwelt at “Cyrene” in Africa. See the notes on Mat_27:32.

Alexandrians - Inhabitants of Alexandria in Egypt. That city was founded by Alexander the Great, 332 b.c., and was populated by colonies of Greeks and Jews. It was much celebrated, and contained not less than 300,000 free citizens, and as many slaves. The city was the residence of many Jews. Josephus says that Alexander himself assigned to them a particular quarter of the city, and allowed them equal privileges with the Greeks (Antiq., Rom_14:7, Rom_14:2; Against Apion, Rom_2:4). Philo affirms that of five parts of the city, the Jews inhabited two. According to his statement, there dwelt in his time at Alexandria and the other Egyptian cities not less than “ten hundred thousand Jews.” Amron, the general of Omar, when he took the city, said that it contained 40,000 tributary Jews. At this place the famous version of the Old Testament called the “Septuagint,” or the Alexandrian version, was made. See Robinson’s Calmet.

Cilicia - This was a province of Asia Minor, on the seacoast, at the north of Cyprus. The capital of this province was Tarsus, the native place of Paul, Act_9:11. As Paul was of this place, and belonged doubtless to this synagogue, it is probable that he was one who was engaged in this dispute with Stephen. Compare Act_7:58.

Of Asia - See the notes on Act_2:9.

Disputing with Stephen - Doubtless on the question whether Jesus was the Messiah. This word does not denote “angry disputing,” but is commonly used to denote “fair and impartial inquiry”; and it is probable that the discussion began in this way, and when they were overcome by “argument,” they resorted, as disputants are apt to do, to

angry criminations and violence.

CLARKE, "The synagogue - of the Libertines, etc. - That Jews and proselytes from various countries had now come up to Jerusalem to bring offerings, and to attend the feast of pentecost, we have already seen, Act_2:9-11. The persons mentioned here were foreign Jews, who appear to have had a synagogue peculiar to themselves at Jerusalem, in which they were accustomed to worship when they came to the public festivals.

Various opinions have been entertained concerning the Libertines mentioned here: Bp. Pearce’s view of the subject appears to me to be the most correct.

“It is commonly thought that by this name is meant the sons of such Jews as had been slaves, and obtained their freedom by the favor of their masters; but it is to be observed that with these Libertines the Cyrenians and Alexandrians are here joined, as having one and the same synagogue for their public worship. And it being known that the Cyrenians (Act_2:10) lived in Libya, and the Alexandrians in the neighborhood of it, it is most natural to look for the Libertines too in that part of the world. Accordingly we find

Suidas, in his Lexicon, saying, upon the word Λιβερτινοι, that it is ονοµα�του�εθνους, the name of a people. And in Gest. Collationis Carthagine habitae inter Catholicos et Donatistas, published with Optatus’s works, Paris, 1679, (No. 201, and p. 57), we have these words: Victor episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Libertinensis dixit, Unitas est illic, publicam non latet conscientiam. Unity is there: all the world knows it. From these two passages it appears that there was in Libya a town or district called Libertina, whose

inhabitants bore the name of Λιβερτινοι, Libertines, when Christianity prevailed there. They had an episcopal see among them, and the above-mentioned Victor was their bishop at the council of Carthage, in the reign of the Emperor Honorius. And from hence it seems probable that the town or district, and the people, existed in the time of which Luke is here speaking. They were Jews, (no doubt), and came up, as the Cyrenian and Alexandrian Jews did, to bring their offerings to Jerusalem, and to worship God in the temple there. Cunaeus, in his Rep. Hebr. ii. 23, says that the Jews who lived in Alexandria and Libya, and all other Jews who lived out of the Holy Land, except those of Babylon and its neighborhood, were held in great contempt by the Jews who inhabited Jerusalem and Judea; partly on account of their quitting their proper country, and partly on account of their using the Greek language, and being quite ignorant of the other. For these reasons it seems probable that the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexendrians, had a separate synagogue; (as perhaps the Cilicians and those of Asia had); the Jews of Jerusalem not suffering them to be present in their synagogues, or they not choosing to perform their public service in synagogues where a language was used which they did not understand.”

It is supposed, also, that these synagogues had theological, if not philosophical, schools attached to them; and that it was the disciples or scholars of these schools who came forward to dispute with Stephen, and were enraged because they were confounded. For it is not an uncommon custom with those who have a bad cause, which can neither stand the test of Scripture nor reason, to endeavor to support it by physical when logical force has failed; and thus: -

“Prove their doctrine orthodox,By apostolic blows and knocks.”

In the reign of Queen Mary, when popery prevailed in this country, and the simplest women who had read the Bible were an overmatch for the greatest of the popish doctors; as they had neither Scripture nor reason to allege, they burned them alive, and thus terminated a controversy which they were unable to maintain. The same cause will ever produce the same effect: the Libertines, Cilicians, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, pursued this course: Stephen confounded them by Scripture and reason, and they beat his brains out with stones! This was the most effectual way to silence a disputant whose wisdom they could not resist. In the same way were the Protestants treated, when by Scripture and reason they had shown the absurdity and wickedness of that anti-christian system which the fire and the sword were brought forth to establish. These persecutors professed great concern at first for the souls of those whom they variously tortured, and at last burned; but their tender mercies were cruel, and when they gave up the body to the flames, they most heartily consigned the soul to Satan. Scires è sanguine natos: their conduct proclaimed their genealogy.

GILL, "Then there arose certain of the synagogue,.... Being filled with indignation at the doctrine of Stephen, and with envy at his miracles, they rose up in great wrath, and warmly opposed him: and they be longed to that synagogue

which is called the synagogue of the libertines; or free men: it is a Roman name, and signifies the sons of free men; and these were either the sons of such Jews, who of

servants, or slaves, had been made משוחררים, "free men"; or rather such Jews whose parents were born free, or had obtained their freedom at Rome, or in some free city under the Roman government, as Paul at Tarsus; since it is not so easy to account for it, that there should be a peculiar synagogue for the former, whereas there might be for the latter, seeing they could not speak the language of the native Jews. The Arabic version reads, "of the Corinthians", as if they were the Jews from Corinth: and some have thought the word "Libertines" to be the name of a nation or people, as well as the names that follow; and some think it designs the Lybians or Lybistines in Africa; but neither of these is likely:

and Cyrenians: natives of the city or country of Cyrene, from whence were many Jews; see Act_2:10 such as Simon the Cyrenian, the father of Alexander, and Rufus, who carried the cross of Christ after him, Mar_15:21 these, with those that follow, either belonged to the same synagogue with the Libertines, or rather they severally had distinct synagogues: and this will not seem strange, when it is said (g), that there were in Jerusalem four hundred and eighty synagogues; though it is elsewhere said (h) four hundred and sixty:

and Alexandrians; for that there were a peculiar synagogue of these at Jerusalem is certain; for there is express mention made of it in Jewish writings (i).

"It happened to R. Eleazar bar Tzadok, that he bought הכנסת the" של�אלכסנדריים�ביתsynagogue of the Alexandrians", which was at Jerusalem, and he did with it whatever he pleased.''

And that they should have a synagogue at Jerusalem need not be wondered at, when there was such an intercourse and correspondence between Jerusalem and Alexandria: it

is said (k),

"the house of Garmu were expert in making of the shewbread, and they would not teach it; the wise men sent and fetched workmen from Alexandria in Egypt, and they knew how to bake as well as they.----The house or family of Abtines were expert in the business of the incense, and they would not teach it; the wise men sent and fetched workmen from Alexandria in Egypt, and they knew how to mix the spices as well as they.''

Again it is said (l),

"there was a brass cymbal in the sanctuary, and it was cracked, and the wise men sent and brought workmen from Alexandria in Egypt, and they mended it---and there was a mortar in which they beat spices, and it was cracked, and the wise men sent and fetched workmen from Alexandria, and they mended it.''

Hence many of them doubtless settled here, and had a synagogue of their own:

and of them of Cilicia; the metropolis of which country was Tarsus, Act_21:39. I make no doubt of it, that Saul of Tarsus was among them, or belonged to this synagogue, and was one of the fierce disputants with Stephen; at least violently opposed him, since

he afterwards held the clothes of those that stoned him; we read (m) of בית�הכנסת�של�

which I should be tempted to render, the "synagogue of the Tarsians", the same ,טרסייםwith the Cilicians here; but that it is elsewhere said (n), that

"it happened to the synagogue of the Tursians, which was at Jerusalem, that they sold it to R. Eliezer, and he did all his business in it.''

Where the gloss explains the word "Tursians" by "brass founders"; and it seems to design the same synagogue with that of the Alexandrians, who may be so called, because many of them wrought in brass, as appears from a citation above. There was a synagogue of these Tarsians at Lud, or Lydda (o): it is added, and of Asia; that is, the less; which joined to Cilicia, and in which were great numbers of Jews; see Act_21:27 this clause is left out in the Alexandrian copy: at Jerusalem, there were synagogues for the Jews of different nations; as here in London, are places of worship for protestants of several countries; as French, Dutch, Germans, Danes, Swedes, &c. Now several persons out of these synagogues, met together in a body,

disputing with Stephen; about the doctrine he preached, and the miracles he wrought, and by what authority he did these things.

HERY, " He pleaded the cause of Christianity against those that opposed it, and argued against it (Act_6:9, Act_6:10); he served the interests of religion as a disputant, in the high places of the field, while others were serving them as vinedressers and husbandmen.

1. We are here told who were his opponents, Act_6:9. They were Jews, but Hellenist Jews, Jews of the dispersion, who seem to have been more zealous for their religion than the native Jews; it was with difficulty that they retained the practice and profession of it in the country where they lived, where they were as speckled birds, and not without great expense and toil that they kept up their attendance at Jerusalem, and this made them

more active sticklers for Judaism than those were whose profession of their religion was cheap and easy. They were of the synagogue which is called the synagogue of the Libertines; the Romans called those Liberti, or Libertini, who either, being foreigners, were naturalized, or, being slaves by birth, were manumitted, or made freemen. Some think that these Libertines were such of the Jews as had obtained the Roman freedom, as Paul had (Act_22:27, Act_22:28); and it is probable that he was the most forward man of this synagogue of the Libertines in disputing with Stephen, and engaged others in the dispute, for we find him busy in the stoning of Stephen, and consenting to his death. There were others that belonged to the synagogue of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, of which synagogue the Jewish writers speak; and others that belonged to their synagogue who were of Cilicia and Asia; and if Paul, as a freeman of Rome, did not belong to the synagogue of the Libertines, he belonged to this, as a native of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia: it is probable that he might be a member of both. The Jews that were born in other countries, and had concerns in them, had frequent occasion, not only to resort to, but to reside in, Jerusalem. Each nation had its synagogue, as in London there are French, and Dutch, and Danish churches: and those synagogues were the schools to which the Jews of those nations sent their youth to be educated in the Jewish learning. Now those that were tutors and professors in these synagogues, seeing the gospel grow, and the rulers conniving at the growth of it, and fearing what would be the consequence of it to the Jewish religion, which they were jealous for, being confident of the goodness of their cause, and their own sufficiency to manage it, would undertake to run down Christianity by force of argument. It was a fair and rational way of dealing with it, and what religion is always ready to admit. Produce your cause, saith the Lord, bring forth your strong reasons, Isa_41:21. But why did they dispute with Stephen? And why not with the apostles themselves? (1.) Some think because they despised the apostles as unlearned and ignorant men, whom they thought it below them to engage with; but Stephen was bred a scholar, and they thought it their honour to meddle with their match. (2.) Others think it was because they stood in awe of the apostles, and could not be so free and familiar with them as they could be with Stephen, who was in an inferior office. (3.) Perhaps, they having given a public challenge, Stephen was chosen and appointed by the disciples to be their champion; for it was not meet that the apostles should leave the preaching of the word of God to engage in controversy. Stephen, who was only a deacon in the church, and a very sharp young man, of bright parts, and better qualified to deal with wrangling disputants than the apostles themselves, was appointed to this service. Some historians say that Stephen had been bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, and that Saul and the rest of them set upon him as a deserter, and with a particular fury made him their mark. (4.) It is probable that they disputed with Stephen because he was zealous to argue with them and convince them, and this was the service to which God had called him.

JAMISO, "synagogue of the Libertines— Jewish freedmen; manumitted Roman captives, or the children of such, expelled from Rome (as appears from Josephus and Tacitus), and now residing at Jerusalem.

Cyrenians— Jews of Cyrene, in Libya, on the coast of Africa.

them of Cilicia— amongst whom may have been Saul of Tarsus (Act_7:58; Act_21:39).

and of Asia— (See on Act_16:6).

CALVI, "9.And there arose certain. This was the beginning of persecution, because the wicked, after that they have essayed in vain to set themselves against Christ by disputing, when they saw that that former attempt did take none effect, they fly unto slanders, (caviling,) and tumults, and at length they break out into violence and murder. Therefore, Luke meaneth by the word rise, that those of whom he speaketh did assault the gospel with their tongue, and did not, by and by, bring Stephen before the judgment-seat, but did first set upon him, by disputing against him. Furthermore, he signifieth that they were strangers, which lived in Judea, either that they might exercise merchandise, or else get learning. Therefore he saith that some of them were Cyrenians, some of Alexandria, some of Cilicia, some of Asia. He saith that they were all of the synagogue of the Libertines. It is to be thought that the free men of the citizens of Rome had caused a synagogue to be builded of their own charges, that it might be proper to the Jews which came together out of the provinces. (355)

Therefore, those which were brought thither by the grace of God, and ought to have embraced Christ so much the more willingly, assault him first, and inflame the fury of others, as it were with a trumpet. Also Luke will in many other places afterward declare that the Jews, which were scattered abroad in the provinces, were most deadly enemies to sound doctrine: and most venomous (356) in moving tumults. He reckoneth up many, to the end the victory of the truth may be more famous, whilst that in any, gathered of divers countries, depart, being vanquished by one man; and it is not to be doubted but that they were enforced to hold their peace with shame. Stephen had already won great favor, and gotten great dignity by miracles. (357) He answereth the disputers now in such sort that he getteth the upper hand much. He putteth not that wisdom and spirit which he saith his adversaries could not gainstand, as divers things. Therefore resolve these words thus: They could not resist the wisdom which the Spirit of God gave him. For Luke meant to express that they fought not on both sides as men; but that the enemies of the gospel were therefore discouraged and overcome, because they did strive against the Spirit of God, which spake by the mouth of Stephen. And forasmuch as Christ hath promised the same Spirit to all his servants, let us only defend the truth faithfully, and let us crave a mouth and wisdom of him, and we shall be sufficiently furnished to speak, so that neither the wit, neither yet the babbling of our adversaries, shall be able to make us ashamed. So the Spirit was as effectual in our time in the mouth of the martyrs which were burnt, and it uttereth the like force now daily, that though they were ignorant men, (never trained up in any schools,) yet did they make the chief divines which maintained Popery no less astonished with their voice only, than if it had thundered and lightned. (358)

COFFMA, "Synagogue ... used here in the singular appears to be the designation of a single place frequented by the various persons mentioned; but the existence of so many synagogues in Jerusalem at that time (Halleck says "there were four hundred and eighty")[22] has led some to suppose that two or more synagogues are in view here; but McGarvey was right in viewing the question as "of no special importance."[23]

Libertines ... would be better translated "Freedmen," as in the English Revised Version (1885) margin. Members of this group had once been slaves, but had received their liberty. A great many of the Christians in those early years were slaves, the same being indicated by their names as given in Romans 16; but the Libertines had been freed. The place names here refer to non-Palestinian areas of the Roman empire populated by Jews of the Diaspora. Alexandria, aside from Rome and Jerusalem, was the largest Jewish city of antiquity; and Cyrene and Cilicia might have been mentioned by Luke because of the connection of Rufus, Alexander, and Simon with the former, and the fact of Paul's being from Tarsus, the principal city of the latter.

ot able to withstand the wisdom ... It is rather remarkable that wisdom should have been ascribed to Stephen, in view of the fact that in the gospels it is attributed to our Lord (Matthew 13:54, etc.) and mentioned as belonging to Solomon (Matthew 12:42). "It implies something higher even than the `consolation' from which Barnabas took his name."[24] It was this great wisdom of Stephen that enabled him completely to vanquish all opponents of the truth he proclaimed.

[22] G. B. F. Hallock, op. cit., p. 579.

[23] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 112.

[24] E. H. Plumptre, op. cit., p. 36.

COKE, "Acts 6:9. The synagogue of the Libertines,— These were Jews born at Rome, whose grandfathers had been in slavery there, and then made free. Great numbers of Jews taken captive by Pompey, and carried into Italy, were set at liberty, and obtained their freedom from their masters. Their children, therefore, would be libertini, in the proper sense of the word. Agreeably to this, the Jews banished from Rome by Tiberius are spoken of by Tacitus as of the libertine race, who might easily constitute one of the 480 synagogues, said to have been at Jerusalem.

ELLICOTT, "(9) Certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines.—The structure of the sentence makes it probable that the Libertines, the Cyrenians, and the Alexandrians attended one synagogue, those of Cilicia and Asia another. Each of the names has a special interest of its own. (1) The Libertini. These were freed-men, emancipated Roman Jews, with probably some proselytes, descendants of those whom Pompeius had led captive, and who were settled in the trans-Tiberine district of Rome in large numbers, with oratories and synagogues of their own. When Tacitus (Ann. ii. 85) describes the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, he speaks of “four thousand of the freed-men, or Libertine class,” as banished to Sardinia. From this class, we have seen reason to believe, Stephen himself had sprung. Andronicus and Junias were probably members of this synagogue. (See ote on Romans 16:7.)

Cyrenians.—At Cyrene, also, on the north coast of Africa, lying between Egypt and

Carthage, there was a large Jewish population. Strabo, quoted by Josephus, describes them as a fourth of the whole (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7, § 2). They were conspicuous for the offerings they sent to the Temple, and had appealed to Augustus for protection against the irregular taxes by which the provincial governors sought to intercept their gifts (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6, § 5). In Simon of Cyrene we have had a conspicuous member, probably a conspicuous convert, of this community. (See ote on Matthew 27:32.) Later on, clearly as the result of Stephen’s teaching, they are prominent in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles of Antioch. We may think of Simon himself, and his two sons Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21), as probably members of this society.

Alexandrians.—ext to Jerusalem and Rome, there was, perhaps, no city in which the Jewish population was so numerous and influential as at Alexandria. Here, too, they had their own quarter, assigned to them by Ptolemy Philadelphus, and were governed, as if they were a free republic, by an ethnarch of their own (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7, § 2). They were recognised as citizens by their Roman rulers (Ibid. xiv. 10, § 1). From Alexandria had come the Greek version of the Old Testament, known from the legend of the seventy translators who had all been led to a supernatural agreement, as that of the Septuagint, or LXX., which was then in use among all the Hellenistic Jews throughout the empire, and largely read even in Palestine itself. There, at this time, living in fame and honour, was the great teacher Philo, the probable master of Apollos, training him, all unconsciously, to be the preacher of a wisdom higher than his own. The knowledge, or want of knowledge, with which Apollos appears on the scene, knowing only the baptism of John, forbids the assumption that he had been at Jerusalem after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 18:25), but echoes of the teaching of Stephen are found in that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and it is not improbable that thoughts had been carried back to Alexandria by those who had thus been brought under his influence.

Of them of Cilicia.—Here we feel at once the interest of the name. The young Jew of Tarsus, the disciple of Gamaliel, could not fail to be among the leading members of this section of the second synagogue, exercising, in the fiery energy of his zeal, a dominant influence even over the others.

And of Asia.—The word is taken, as throughout the ew Testament, in its later and more restricted sense, as denoting the pro-consular province so called, including the old Lydia and Ionia, and having Ephesus as its capital. Later on in the history, we find Jews of Asia prominent in their zeal for the sacredness of the Temple (Acts 21:27).

Disputing with Stephen.—The nature of the dispute is not far to seek. The tendency of distance from sacred places which are connected with men’s religion, is either to make men sit loose to their associations, and so rise to higher and wider thoughts, or to intensify their reverence. Where pilgrimages are customary, the latter is almost invariably the result. Men measure the sacredness of what they have come to see by the labour and cost which they have borne to see it, and they resent anything that suggests that they have wasted their labour, as tending to sacrilege and impiety. The

teaching of Stephen, representing as it did the former alternative, guided and perfected by the teaching of the Spirit, was probably accepted by a few in each community. The others, moved by their pilgrim zeal were more intolerant of it than the dwellers in Jerusalem, to whom the ritual of the Temple was a part of their every-day life. Those who were most familiar with it, the priests who ministered in its courts, were, as we have seen (Acts 6:7), among the first to welcome the new and wider teaching.

PETT, "‘But there arose certain of those who were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.’

So Stephen boldly went into the Hellenistic Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem and proclaimed Christ. And the description suggests that there he disputed with many who disagreed with him. We do not know whether this was one synagogue where all these types met, or a number of synagogues such as a synagogue of the Freedmen (Libertines), a synagogue for Cyrenians, a synagogue for Alexandrians (Egyptians), and one for Cilicians and Asians. But the participants were all firm in their beliefs, and we can almost certainly presume that some Pharisees were involved, for as knowledgeable in the Law and in the Scriptures they would unquestionably involve themselves in such a situation.

The Libertines were possibly composed of freedmen who having been released from slavery tended to group together and make common cause. They may well have formed a separate synagogue, for a synagogue could be set up by ten or more adult males. The Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from orth Africa. The Cilicians and Asians were from the north. The Cilicians may well have included Saul (Paul) among their number.

WHEDO, "9. Certain of the synagogue—The five synagogues here mentioned, out of the four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem, were all held by Hellenists or foreign Jews, and so glad, perhaps, to signalize their zeal for Judaism against their brother Hellenist, Stephen.

Libertines—That is, freedmen, emancipates from slavery. They probably belonged to the Roman Jews, who were mostly of this class. (See section on the Roman Church in our Introduction to Romans.) About seventeen years before this period Tiberius had ordered the Jews to depart from Rome, and we may thence infer that some of them immigrated to Jerusalem and built their synagogues. Libertines here would therefore be equivalent to Roman Jews.

The structure of the verse implies a twofold classification into Roman and African Jews, and Asiatic Jews.

Cyrenians—See Mark 15:21. About one fourth of the African city of Cyrene were Jews. This city had representatives at the Pentecost, (Acts 2:10,) and probably from among them it was that certain came and preached at Antioch, (Acts 11:20,) and

Lucius of Cyrene was one of the eminent men who commissioned Barnabas and Paul from Antioch, (Acts 13:1.)

The more fully we investigate the subject the more strongly we incline to the belief that Luke is identical with “Lucius of Cyrene” in Acts 13:1, (where see our note,) and so was himself a Cyrenian and an attendant at this synagogue. Supposing, according to our note on Luke 24:13, that he was one of the two from Emmaus, he arrived in Jerusalem (from Cyrene by way of Alexandria perhaps) at the Passover of the crucifixion, and was some way connected with the Christian disciples. He was a physician, and both Cyrene and Alexandria were medically celebrated. He was, thence, at the Pentecost, as his full narrative of the preparations and of the Pentecost, as well as his full report of the speeches of Peter, show. He was part of the Pentecostal Church through the whole six or seven years of its history. Then upon the Stephanic dispersion he was one of the “men of Cyrene,” who went first to Cyprus (Acts 11:19-20) and thence to Antioch, where he is the “Lucius of Cyrene,” of Acts 13:1, where see note.

Alexandrians—Alexandria, the chief maritime city, and for a long time the metropolis, of lower Egypt, received its name from its founder, Alexander the Great. Its advantageous commercial position raised it among the most eminent cities of its period, and well attested the wisdom of its founder in its selection. Alexander was a favourer of the Jewish race, and gave them such advantages in this new metropolis that they became numerous, wealthy, educated, and influential. The Jews never had a man of greater erudition than Philo, who adorned this city with his genius, and left works extant and valued at the present day. Here the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the Greek, forming the celebrated Septuagint. (Vol. II, p. 10.)

Cilicia—Paul’s native province. It was the long, narrow strip of territory lining the northern shore of the eastern part of the Mediterranean. It was bounded, or rather walled in from the rest of Asia Minor, by the almost impassable line of Taurus mountains. Yet, though thus isolated, it formed the marching route of armies between Europe and Asia. At the eastern extremity, where the Taurus range nearly touches the great northeast corner of the sea, was the narrow pass into Syria and Asia, generally called the Cilician Gates, (Issus,) where more than one memorable battle was fought for the right of way. The inhabitants were Asiatic Greeks mixed with Syrians. The aboriginal population, as well as the name, is probably Phenician. Antiochus the Great introduced two thousand Jews into Asia Minor, and the Jewish population appears from this verse to have been numerous enough to need a synagogue in Jerusalem.

Asia—The Asia of the ew Testament never includes, as in modern times, the eastern great quarter of the globe, (called by a late Roman writer, Justin, Asia Major.) or was the term Asia Minor used until the fourth century. Asia under Roman dominion, “proconsular Asia,” usually included the provinces of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, and Lydia, of which the capital was Ephesus, and this was the Asia of Acts and the Epistles.

Disputing with Stephen—It is probable that some of the synagogues of large cities consisted of two apartments, one for public worship, the other for theological education and discussion.

OTES, "His opponents were Hellenist Jews. He was appointed to care for the widows of these Jews who were Christians, but came under attack from those who were not.

Synagogue of Freedmen-Jews who were slaves of Rome but were emancipated and returned to Judea. They were foreigners who had been slaves and were now made free. There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the time of Christ according to tradition.

All through Acts and the history of the church the world has argued with the church and sought to show them wrong by reason and logic. Christians must mingle with the world’s ideas and be superior in argument. We need to be in the world but not of it, but like Jesus, be among those who need what he had to give. To be isolated leads to no communication.

Gary Collins, “Sometimes people within the church don’t get along well with people outside the church because they expect outsiders to conform to Christian standards. If a non-believer uses fowl language or engages in behavior considered to be un-Christian, we tend to reject him. Before long, justified by the belief that we are not to be of this world and that we should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, we withdraw into our own little Christian communities. Our friends are all Christians, our children attend Christian schools, we listen to Christian radio stations, and read Christian books. We patronize Christian businesses and go to Christian doctors regardless of their medical competence. As a result of this inbreeding we become “Protestant monks.” Unable to communicate with people in the world around us let alone witness to them.”

COSTABLE 9-10. "Many different synagogues existed in Jerusalem at this time (cf. Acts 24:12). The Talmud said there were 390 of them before the Romans destroyed the city. [ote: See Fiensy, p. 234.] Other rabbinic sources set the number at 460 and 480, but these may be exaggerations. [ote: See Edersheim, The Life . . ., 1:119.] Like local churches today, they tended to attract people with similar backgrounds and preferences. Many families that had experienced liberation from some kind of slavery or servitude evidently populated the Synagogue of the Freedmen. Some scholars believe that as many as five synagogues are in view in this reference, but the best interpretation seems to be that there was just one. [ote: See Riesner, pp. 204-6.]

"The Freedmen were Roman prisoners (or the descendants of such prisoners) who had later been granted their freedom. We know that a considerable number of Jews were taken prisoner by the Roman general Pompey and later released in Rome, and

it is possible that these are meant here." [ote: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 129. See also Barrett, pp. 323-24.]These people had their roots in orth Africa (Cyrene and Alexandria) and Asia Minor (Cilicia and Asia). Thus these were Hellenistic Jews, the group from which Stephen himself probably came. Since Saul of Tarsus was from Cilicia, perhaps he attended this synagogue, though he was not a freed man. The leading men in this congregation took issue with Stephen whom they had heard defend the gospel. Perhaps he, too, attended this synagogue. However they were unable to defeat him in debate. Stephen seems to have been an unusually gifted defender of the faith, though he was not one of the Twelve. He was a forerunner of later apologists. God guided wise Stephen by His Spirit as he spoke (cf. Luke 21:15).

This is the first occurrence in Acts of someone presenting the gospel in a Jewish synagogue. Until now we have read that the disciples taught and preached in the temple and from house to house (Acts 5:42). We now learn that they were also announcing the good news in their Jewish religious meetings. Paul normally preached first in the synagogue in towns he evangelized on his missionary journeys.

"While not minimizing the importance of the apostles to the whole church, we may say that in some way Stephen, Philip, and perhaps others of the appointed seven may well have been to the Hellenistic believers what the apostles were to the native-born Christians." [ote: Longenecker, p. 335.]

PULPIT, "But for then, A.V.; certain of them that were for certain, A.V.; of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians for Cyrenians and Alexandrians, A.V.; Asia for of Asia, A.V. Of the synagogue, etc. There were said to have been four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem alone in the time of our Savior (Olshausen, on Matthew 4:23). But this is probably a fanciful number; only it may be taken as an indication of the great number of such places of Jewish worship. Tiberias is said to have had twelve synagogues. Ten grown-up people was the minimum congregation of a synagogue. It seems by the enumeration of synagogues in our text that the foreign Jews had each their own synagogue at Jerusalem, as Chrysostom supposes, where men of the same nation attended when they came to Jerusalem; for the construction of the sentence is to supply before κυρηναίων and again before ἀλεξανδρέων the same words as precede λιβερτίνων, viz. καὶ τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγοµένης, SO as to mean "and certain of them that were of the synagogue called of the Cyrenians," and so on. The very numerous Jews of Cyrene and of Alexandria would doubtless require each a synagogue for themselves. The Libertines were, as Chrysostom explains it, "freedmen of the Romans." They are thought to consist chiefly of the descendants of the Jews who were taken prisoners by Pompey, and deported to Rome, who were afterwards emancipated and returned to Judaea, though some (Meyer, Romans 1:1) settled in Rome. Tacitus, under the year A.D. 19, speaks of four thousand Libertini, infected with Jewish or Egyptian superstitions, as banished to Sardinia ('Annal.,' 2. 85.). Many of these must have been Jews. Josephus, who tells the same story as Tacitus, though somewhat differently, says they were all Jews ('Ant. Jud.,' 18, 3.5). The Cyrenians. Cyrene was

the chief city in orth Africa, and a great Jewish colony. umbers of Jews were settled there in the time of Ptolemy Lagus ('Cont. Apion.,' 2.4), and are said by Josephus (quoting Strabo) to have been a fourth part of the inhabitants of the city ('Ant. Jud.,'14. 7.2). Josephus also quotes edicts of Augustus and of M. Agrippa, confirming to the Jews of Cyrene the right to live according to their own laws, and specially to send money for the temple at Jerusalem (16. 6.5). Jews from "the parts of Libya about Cyrene" are mentioned in Acts 2:10; Simon, who bore our Savior's cross, was "a man of Cyreue;" there were "men of Cyrene" at Jerusalem at the time of the persecution that arose about Stephen (Acts 11:19); and "Lucius of Cyrene" is mentioned in Acts 13:1. It was natural, therefore, that the Cyrenians should have a synagogue of their own at Jerusalem. Of the Alexandrians. Alexandria had a Jewish population of 100,000 at this time, equal to two-fifths of the whole city. The famous Philo, who was in middle age at this time, was an Alexandrian, and the Alexandrian Jews were the most learned of their race. The Jews settled in Alexandria in the time of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Lagus. The LXX. Version of the Scriptures was made at Alexandria primarily for their use. We may be sure, therefore, that they had a synagogue at Jerusalem. And of them of Cilicia. The transition from the African Jews to those of Asia is marked by changing the form of phrase into καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ κιλικίας. There were many Jews in Cilicia, and this doubtless influenced St. Paul in preaching there, as well as the fact of its being his own native province (see Acts 15:23, Acts 15:41; Galatians 1:21). Josephus makes frequent mention of the Jews in the wars between the Ptolemies and Antiochus the Great, with whom the Jews sided, and in consequence were much favored by him. And it is thought that many who had been driven out from their homes by the wars, and others who were brought by him from Babylonia, settled in his time in Cilicia, as well as other parts of his Asiatic dominions. Seleucus also encouraged the Jews to settle in the towns of Asia in his kingdom, by giving them the freedom of the cities and putting them on an equal footing ( ἰσοτίµους) with Macedonians and Greeks ('Ant. Jud.,' 12. 3.1, 3). Asia; meaning the same district as in Acts 2:9 (where see note). Evidence of the abundance of Jews in Asia crops up throughout the Acts (8. 16, 24, 42, 45; Acts 14:19; Acts 16:13; Acts 18:26, Acts 18:28; Acts 19:17; Acts 20:21). That the Jews of Asia were very bigoted we learn from Acts 21:27 (see also 1 Peter 1:1).

PULPIT 9-15, "Fanaticism.

Fanaticism has one respectable feature, that it is sincere. The fanatic believes what he asserts to be true, and he is earnest and zealous in the maintenance and propagation of his belief. But when we have said thus much we have said all that can be said in his favor. In fanaticism there is a culpable neglect of the reason which God has given to man to be his guide. The fanatic shuts his eyes and closes his ears, and rushes on his way with no more reflection or discrimination than a wild bull in its fury. Fanaticism, too, has a fatal tendency to deaden all moral considerations and to blunt a man's perceptions of right and wrong. It is in vain to look for justice, or fairness, or truth, or mercy, from a fanatic. There is no violence of which he is not capable if he thinks his faith is in danger, no wiles and baseness to which he will not stoop if he thinks it necessary for the defense of his cause. Murder, perjury, bribery,

subornation of witnesses, and defamation of opponents by lies and slander, have constantly been the weapons by which fanaticism of various kinds has ever defended itself. The end justified the means. It is, however, a curious feature in the history of fanaticism that it is often so closely allied with self-interest. And this is a feature which derogates considerably from its only merit, that of sincerity. In a pure love of truth there is no thought of self-interest. Truth, is a holy, Divine thing, loved for its own sake. But the fanatic's creed is not pure truth; and so it seems it cannot be loved with the same pure, disinterested love with which truth is loved. Hence it has often been the parent of crime; and hence it is, as we have just said, often allied with self-interest. It is so with Mohammedan fanaticism; it has been so and still is with Romish and specially Jesuitical fanaticism; it was so with Puritan and fifth-monarchy fanaticism; it is so with other existing forms of fanatical and unreasonable zeal. In the case before us in this chapter we need not doubt that these Hellenistic Jews had a very strong and ardent attachment to the Law of Moses, and that their dread and dislike of Stephen's teaching arose from their apprehension that Christian doctrine was in its nature destructive of their own tenets. But if their attachment to the Law of Moses had been intelligent and pure, they would have welcomed the gospel of Christ as being the fulfillment of the Law. If they had been actuated by a holy love of God's truth, they would not have sought to uphold the Mosaic institutions By violence, by injustice, and by fraud. or can we doubt that, as in the case of the chief priests and scribes and elders, who conspired to take away the life of Jesus Christ, so in the case of these heated partisans, the fear of losing their own places of influence and power, and having to yield the place of honor to the Galilaean teachers whom they hated and despised, had much to do with the unrighteous zeal of the members of the Hellenistic synagogues. The Christian should strive to have a zeal for Christ and Ms glory quite as ardent as that of any fanatic, but at the same time to keep the eyes and ears of his reason always open for the correction of any error into which he may inadvertently have fallen, and for the addition of any truth which he may not hitherto have known. Above all, he will never seek to bear down reason by violence, or to defend truth with the carnal weapons of unrighteousness, whether violence or fraud.

10 But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.

BARES, "synagogue of the Libertines— Jewish freedmen; manumitted Roman

captives, or the children of such, expelled from Rome (as appears from Josephus and Tacitus), and now residing at Jerusalem.

Cyrenians— Jews of Cyrene, in Libya, on the coast of Africa.

them of Cilicia— amongst whom may have been Saul of Tarsus (Act_7:58; Act_21:39).

and of Asia— (See on Act_16:6).

CLARKE, "They there not able to resist the wisdom, etc. - He was wise, well exercised and experienced, in Divine things; and, as appears by his defense, in the following chapter, well versed in the Jewish history. The spirit by which he spake was the Holy Spirit, and its power was irresistible. They were obliged either to yield to its teachings, or were confounded by its truth. Several MSS. add to this verse, because he reproved them with boldness, they could not resist the truth. This reading is not genuine, though it exists (but in different forms) in some good MSS.

GILL, "And they were not able to resist the wisdom,.... In Beza's most ancient copy, and in another manuscript it is added, "which was in him"; that divine wisdom, which the Spirit of wisdom gave him; they were not a match for him with respect to the knowledge of divine things; they could not answer the wise arguments he made use of, fetched out of the Scriptures of truth, in which he was well versed, and had a large knowledge of:

and the Spirit by which he spake; that is, the Holy Spirit, as the above exemplars of Beza, and the Ethiopic version read; the meaning is, they could not resist the Holy Spirit, by which Stephen spake, so as to overcome him, or put Stephen to silence, or confute him; otherwise they did resist him, or oppose themselves to him, but in vain, and without success; for they always resisted the Holy Ghost in Christ and in his apostles, as their fathers before them resisted him in the prophets, as Stephen observes to them, Act_7:51 hereby was fulfilled what our Lord promised to his disciples, Mat_10:19.

HERY, "We are here told how he carried the point in this dispute (Act_6:10): They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. They could neither support their own arguments nor answer his. He proved by such irresistible arguments that Jesus is the Christ, and delivered himself with so much clearness and fulness that they had nothing to object against what he said; though they were not convinced, yet they were confounded. It is not said, They were not able to resist him, but, They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke, that Spirit of wisdom which spoke by him. Now was fulfilled that promise, I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist, Luk_21:15. They thought they had only disputed with Stephen, and could make their part good with him; but they were disputing with the Spirit of God in him, for whom they were an unequal match.

JAMISO, "not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake— What he said, and the power with which he spake it, were alike resistless.

ELLICOTT, "(10) They were not able.—Better, had no strength; the verb being somewhat more forcible than that commonly translated “to be able.”

To resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake.—It is remarkable that Stephen is the first Christian teacher of whom “wisdom” is thus specially predicted. In the Gospels it is ascribed to our Lord (Matthew 13:54; Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52); and we read of “the wisdom of Solomon” (Matthew 12:42). In a writer like St. Luke, it implies something higher even than the “consolation” or “prophecy” from which Barnabas took his name—wider thoughts, a clearer vision of the truth, the development of what had been before latent in hints and parables and dark sayings. The speech that follows in the next chapter, may be accepted as an example, as far as circumstances allowed, of the method and power of his general teaching.

PETT, "‘And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.’

Stephen was clearly a capable debater and on top of that was also enabled in wisdom by the Holy Spirit. Thus as his opponents discussed with him they found that their arguments were being defeated. They became aware that all too often Stephen was winning the argument. They began to find the things that they saw as most precious marginalised. We may surmise that they argued about the things that Stephen would lay down in his speech, that Christ was the coming Prophet and Righteous one, that men should look more to Him than to the Temple, and that presence in the land mattered little one way or the other. What mattered was to follow Christ and obey Him.

The account concentrates on the response of those who took this badly. To be in the ‘holy land’ and in the ‘holy Temple’ meant a huge amount to them. They hoped that it might help to get them obtain eternal life. And now they felt as though their foundations were being taken away. But there may well have been some who found themselves convinced, and became Christians.

OTE, "It is so important that Christians have men of wisdom to show the world that the Christian faith is founded on solid rock and is wiser than any alternative. Sometimes Christians are not wise and take stands on issues they know nothing about and the world mocks at their lack of wisdom. Augustine back in the 5th

century was concerned about this and wrote, “When they (unbelievers) find one belonging to the Christian body falling into error on a subject with which they themselves are thoroughly conversant, and when they see him, moreover, enforcing his groundless opinion by the authority of our sacred books, how are they likely to put trust in these books about the resurrection of the dead, and the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?”

11 Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”

BARES, "Then they suborned men - To suborn in law means to procure a person to take such a false oath as constitutes perjury (Webster). It has substantially this sense here. It means that they induced them to declare what was false, or to bring a false accusation against him. This was done, not by declaring a palpable and open falsehood, but by “perverting” his doctrines, and by stating their own “inferences” as what he had actually maintained - the common way in which people oppose doctrines from which they differ. The Syriac reads this place, “Then they sent certain men, and instructed them that they should say, etc.” This was repeating an artifice which they had before practiced so successfully in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. See Mat_26:60-61.

We have heard ... -When they alleged that they had heard this is not said. Probably, however, they referred to some of his discourses with the people when he performed miracles and wonders among them, Act_6:8.

Blasphemous words - See the notes on Mat_9:3. Moses was regarded with profound reverence. His laws they held to be unchangeable. Any intimation, therefore, that there was a greater Lawgiver than he, or that his institutions were mere shadows and types, and were no longer binding, would be regarded as blasphemy, even though it should be spoken with the highest professed respect for Moses. That the Mosaic institutions were to be changed, and give place to another and a better dispensation, all the Christian teachers would affirm; but this was not said with a design to blaspheme or revile Moses. “In the view of the Jews,” to say that was to speak blasphemy; and hence, instead of reporting what he actually “did” say, they accused him of “saying” what “they” regarded as blasphemy. If reports are made of what people say, their very “words” should be reported; and we should not report our inferences or impressions as what they said.

And against God - God was justly regarded by the Jews as the giver of theft law and the author of their institutions. But the Jews, either willfully or involuntarily, not knowing that they were a shadow of good things to come, and were therefore to pass away, regarded all intimations of such a change as blasphemy against God. God had a right to change or abolish those ceremonial observances, and it was “not” blasphemy in Stephen to declare it.

CLARKE, "Then they suborned men -Qπεβαλον. They made underhand work; got associated to themselves profligate persons, who for money would swear any thing.

Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God - This was the most deadly charge they could bring against him. We have already seen, Mat_9:4, that

blasphemy, when against God, signifies speaking impiously of his nature, attributes, or works; and, when against men, it signifies speaking injuriously of their character, blasting their reputation, etc. These false witnesses came to prove that he had blasphemed Moses by representing him as an impostor, or the like; and God, by either denying his being, his providence, the justice of his government, etc.

GILL, "Then they suborned men,.... Hired false witnesses, which seems to have been commonly done by the Jews; so they did in the case of Christ:

which said, we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God; that is, against the law of Moses, and so against God, who gave the law to Moses, as appears from Act_6:13 the blasphemous words seem to be, with respect to the ceremonial law, and the abrogation of it, which Stephen might insist upon, and they charged with blasphemy; see Act_6:14.

HERY, "At length, he sealed it with his blood; so we shall find he did in the next chapter; here we have some steps taken by his enemies towards it. When they could not answer his arguments as a disputant, they prosecuted him as a criminal, and suborned witnesses against him, to swear blasphemy upon him. “On such terms (saith Mr. Baxter here) do we dispute with malignant men. And it is next to a miracle of providence that no greater number of religious persons have been murdered in the world, by the way of perjury and pretence of law, when so many thousands hate them who make no conscience of false oaths.” They suborned men, that is, instructed them what to say, and then hired them to swear it. They were the more enraged against him because he had proved them to be in the wrong, and shown them the right way; for which they ought to have given him their best thanks. Was he therefore become their enemy, because he told them the truth, and proved it to be so? Now let us observe here,

JAMISO, "blasphemous words against Moses— doubtless referring to the impending disappearance of the whole Mosaic system.

and against God— This must refer to the supreme dignity and authority which he claimed for Christ, as the head of that new economy which was so speedily to supersede the old (compare Act_7:56, Act_7:59, Act_7:60).

BESO, "Acts 6:11-14. Then they suborned men — As they found they were incapable of defending themselves by fair argument, they had recourse to a most mean and dishonest fraud; they suborned men to bear false witness against him, and depose that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses —Their great and divinely-commissioned lawgiver; and against God — The great author of that law which Moses delivered by command from him. They were right in supposing that they who blasphemed Moses, if they meant the writings of Moses, which were given by inspiration of God, blasphemed God himself. They that speak reproachfully of the Scriptures, and ridicule them, reflect upon God himself, and do despite to him. But did Stephen blaspheme Moses? By no means; he was far from it. Christ and the preachers of his gospel never said any thing that looked like blaspheming Moses; they always quoted his writings with respect; appealed to them,

and said no other things but what Moses foretold should come. Very unjustly, therefore, is Stephen indicted for blaspheming Moses. “On such terms,” says Baxter, “we dispute with malignant men: when they cannot resist the truth, they suborn men to swear to false accusations. And it is next to a miracle of Providence, that no greater number of religious persons have been murdered in the world, by the way of perjury and pretence of law, when so many thousands hate them, who make no conscience of false oaths.” And they stirred up the people and the elders —They incensed both the government and the mob against him, that if they could not prevail by the one, they might by the other; that if the sanhedrim should still think fit, according to Gamaliel’s advice, to let him alone, yet they might prevail against him by popular rage and tumult; or, if the people should countenance and protect him, they might effect his destruction by the authority of the elders and scribes. And came upon him, and caught him — Greek, επισταντες συνηρπασαν, rushing on him, they seized him, and brought him to the council; which, it seems, was then sitting; and there, in the presence of their highest court of judicature, they set up false witnesses — Witnesses that they themselves knew to be false; who said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words — These suborned witnesses, being brought together, imboldened one another in bearing a false testimony. Against this holy place — Meaning the temple, where they then were; and the law — The divinely- inspired law, as one that has no reverence at all for its authority. For we have heard him say, that Jesus shall destroy this place — Perhaps they had, but that did not prove that he had been guilty of blasphemy. Thus Christ was condemned as a blasphemer, for words which were thought to reflect upon the temple, for the honour of which they seemed to be greatly concerned, at the very time when by their wickedness they were profaning it; making it not only a house of merchandise, but a den of thieves. And shall change the customs which Moses delivered us — It is not probable that Stephen knew the mystery of the abolition of the Mosaic law, which even the apostles do not seem to have had now any idea of. And it is much less probable that he openly taught what Paul himself, many years after, only insinuated, and that with very great caution. Compare Galatians 2:2. This therefore seems to have been merely an inference drawn by them from what he taught concerning the destruction coming on the Jews, if they continued in their unbelief: but it was a very precarious inference, as the city and temple had been destroyed before, without any repeal of the law, and therefore they were false witnesses. And they were still more so in affirming that in saying these things he had spoken blasphemous words against that holy place, and against the law — What blasphemy was it against that holy place, which they at once profaned and idolized, to say that it should not be perpetual, any more than Shiloh was? And that the just and holy God would not continue the privileges of his sanctuary to those that abused them? Had not the prophets given the same warning to their fathers, of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans? ay, when the temple was first built, did not God himself give the same warning? This house, which is high, shall be an astonishment, 2 Chronicles 7:21. And with respect to the law, which they charged him with blaspheming, that law of which they made their boast, and in which they put their trust, even then, when, through breaking it, they dishonoured God, (Romans 2:23,) how was Stephen’s saying, (if he really did say,) that Jesus would change the customs which Moses had delivered to them, blaspheming it or its glorious Author?

Was it not foretold by the prophets, and therefore to be expected, that in the days of the Messiah, the old customs should be changed, and that the shadows should give place when the substance was come? This, however, was no essential change of the law, but the perfecting of it: for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; and if he changed some customs that Moses delivered, it was to introduce and establish those that were much better.

COFFMA, "They suborned men ... Men do not need to be bribed to tell the truth; and the Pharisees' money in view in this verse is proof enough that the testimony procured by it was false; but such is the mystery of evil that in every generation there must be champions of every lie Satan ever invented. Regarding the false charges alleged against Stephen, "Baur and Zeller accused Luke of uttering an untruth, for ... they alleged that Stephen had really entertained the opinions and spoken the words with which he was charged."[25] It is of no significance that the Pharisees might indeed have "interpreted" some of Stephen's words as blasphemous, because the Pharisees themselves were the actual blasphemers through their conceited device of equating their own prejudiced interpretations with the law of God. On the face of it, the lying charge that Stephen had blasphemed either God or Moses was unsupported by any fact whatever. As De Welt expressed it: "The accusation was nothing but a black lie";[26] and we might add that the falsity of the charges was matched by the deceit of the suborned witnesses pretending to have "heard" Stephen say things, despite the probability that they had "heard" nothing at all, but were told what to say by the paymasters procuring the perjury. By definition, "suborned witnesses" are "false witnesses."

[25] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 109.

[26] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 88.

COKE, "Acts 6:11. Blasphemous words against Moses, &c.— There is no reason to believe that Stephen knew the mystery of the abolition of the Mosaic law, which the apostles do not seem immediately to have understood: and it is much less probable, that he openly taught what St. Paul himself, many years after, insinuated with so much caution. See Galatians 2:2. This, therefore, seems to have been the inference which they drew from what he taught concerning the destruction that he denounced on the Jews, if they continued in their unbelief: but it was a very precarious inference, as the city and temple had been destroyed before without any repeal of the law, and therefore they were false witnesses. Compare Acts 6:13-14.

ELLICOTT, "(11) Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.—The words indicate with sufficient clearness the nature of Stephen’s teaching. The charge was a false one, but its falsehood was a distortion of the truth, as that against our Lord had been. He was accused of blasphemy in calling Himself the Son of God; making Himself equal with God (Matthew 26:63; John 5:18); threatening to destroy the Temple (Matthew 26:61)—each of the counts in the indictment resting on words that He had actually spoken. And Stephen, in like manner, was charged with offences for which there must have seemed colourable ground. He had taught, we

must believe, that the days of the Temple were numbered; that with its fall the form of worship of which it was the representative would pass away, that the Law given by Moses was to make way for the higher revelation in Christ, and the privileges of the elect nation to be merged in the blessings of the universal Church. In this case, accordingly, the antagonism comes, not only or chiefly, as in the previous chapters, from the Sadducean high priests and their followers, but from the whole body of scribes and people. Pharisees and Sadducees, Hebrews and Hellenistæ, are once more brought into coalition against the new truth.

PETT, "‘Then they suborned men, who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” ’

But those who took their defeat hard and were not willing to yield did what many do who lose an argument, they stirred up trouble for Stephen. They were genuinely angry and their policy was, if you cannot beat him have him beaten. Thus they raised up evil men to spread false rumours. These went about declaring that they had heard Stephen speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Men of strong belief are prone to see things that they do not agree with as blasphemous, especially if it shows up what they do believe in. It is a tendency when someone has a strong belief in something.

SBC, "The first Christian Martyr. Look:—

I. At Stephen as a man. The third verse gives us to understand that he was a man of "honest report:" literally, a man well testified of—the public bore him good witness. (1) This means that he was an honest man; and not only honest, but that he had a reputation for honesty. (2) But the words further imply that he was a good man. He was good, and he seemed good. A good character should be clear as glass, or, to use the Biblical illustration, transparent as light—a character men can not only look at, but look through, and see God behind and beyond.

II. Stephen as a Christian. (1) He was full of faith. (2) He was full of the Holy Ghost.

III. Stephen as a deacon. (1) He was full of grace. (2) Being thus full of grace, he was of necessity full of power. (3) Moreover, he did great wonders and miracles among the people. For a while he is the most promising and interesting figure in Christian antiquity, and if we possessed his grace we should also inherit his power, and do great wonders, if not miracles, among the people.

IV. Stephen as a disputant. (1) They were not able to resist the wisdom with which he spake. (2) They were not able to resist the spirit by which he spake.

V. Stephen as a prisoner. His character as a prisoner is set forth in the eleventh and succeeding verses. His speech before his judges was remarkable: his bodily appearance was more remarkable still. They all, "looking steadfastly on him, beheld his face, as it had been the face of an angel."

VI. Stephen as a martyr. 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. Heathens may die bravely, believers in Christ only die Divinely. "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."

J. Cynddylan Jones, Studies in the Acts, p. 135.

12 So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin.

BARES, "And they stirred up the people - They “excited” the people, or alarmed their fears, as had been done before when they sought to put the Lord Jesus to death, Mat_27:20.

The elders - The members of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council.

Scribes - See the notes on Mat_2:4.

To the council - To the Sanhedrin, or the Great Council of the nation, which claimed jurisdiction in the matters of religion. See the notes on Mat_2:4.

CLARKE, "And they - The Libertines, etc., mentioned before, stirred up the people - raised a mob against him, and, to assist and countenance the mob, got the elders and scribes to conduct it, who thus made themselves one with the basest of the people, whom they collected; and then, altogether, without law or form of justice, rushed on the good man, seized him, and brought him to a council who, though they sat in the seat of judgment, were ready for every evil work.

GILL, "And they stirred up the people,.... The common people, who were easily wrought upon, and soon incensed and provoked, when at any time it was suggested to them that the rituals and ceremonies of the law of Moses were treated with any neglect or contempt; see Act_21:27.

And the elders and the Scribes; who belonged to the sanhedrim, to whom they reported these things, as persons, under whose cognizance they properly came:

and came upon him; at an unawares, and in an hostile way:

and caught him; seized him with violence:

and brought him to the council; the great sanhedrim, then sitting at Jerusalem, to whom it belonged to judge of blasphemy.

HERY, "1. How with all possible art and industry they incensed both the government and the mob against him, that, if they could not prevail by the one, they might by the other (Act_6:12): They stirred up the people against him, that, if the sanhedrim should still think fit (according to Gamaliel's advice) to let him alone, yet they might run him down by a popular rage and tumult; they also found means to stir up the elders and scribes against him, that, if the people should countenance and protect him, they might prevail by authority. Thus they doubted not but to gain their point, when then had two strings to their bow.

2. How they got him to the bar: They came upon him, when he little thought of it, and caught him and brought him to the council. They came upon him in a body, and flew upon him as a lion upon his prey; so the word signifies. By their rude and violent treatment of him, they would represent him, both to the people, and to the government, as a dangerous man, that would either flee from justice if he were not watched, or fight with it if he were not put under a force. Having caught him, they brought him triumphantly into the council, and, as it should seem, so hastily that he had none of his friends with him. They had found, when they brought many together, that they emboldened one another, and strengthened one another's hands; and therefore they will try how to deal with them singly.

CALVI, "12.Being overcome with the power of the Spirit, they give over disputing, but they prepare false witnesses, that with false and slanderous reports, they may oppress him; whereby it appeareth that they did strive with an evil conscience. For what can be more unmeet than in their cause to lean unto lies? (359) Admit he were a wicked man, and guilty, yet he must not have false witness borne against him. (360) But hypocrites, which shroud themselves under zeal, do carelessly grant themselves leave to do that. We see how the Papists at this day corrupt manifest places of Scripture, and that wittingly, whilst that they will falsely wrest testimonies against us. I confess, indeed, that they offend for the most part through ignorance; yet can we find none of them which doth not grant himself liberty to corrupt both the sense and also the words of the Scripture, that they may bring our doctrine into contempt; (361) yea, they slander us monstrously even in the pulpit. If you ask these Rabbins, whether it be lawful to slander a man or no, they will deny that it is lawful generally; but when they come unto us, good zeal doth excuse them, because they think that nothing is unlawful which may burden us or our cause; therefore they flatter themselves in lying, falsehood, and dogged impudence. Such hypocrisy did also blind them of whom Luke speaketh in this place, which used false witness to put Stephen to death; for when Satan reigneth, he doth not only prick forward the reprobate unto cruelty, but also blind their eyes, so that they think that they may do whatsoever they will. We are specially taught by this example, how dangerous the color of good zeal is, unless it be governed by the Spirit of God; for it breaketh out always into furious madness, and, in the mean season, it is a marvelous visor to cover all manner of wickedness.

COFFMA, "Say ... that Jesus of azareth shall destroy this place ... This was a lie in that neither our Lord nor Stephen ever declared that he, Christ, would destroy the temple; what Jesus actually said was that they, the religious leaders, would

destroy it, that is, the temple of his body, the same having no reference at all to the secular temple of the Jews. Moreover, at that same moment, Jesus promised that he would "raise it up" (the temple of his body) in three days (John 2:19-22).

Jesus indeed prophesied the destruction of the temple, promising not that he himself would destroy it, but affirming that "The king (God) would send his armies (those of the Romans) and destroy those murderers and burn their city" (Matthew 22:7).

Change the customs ... Only malignant spite could construe Stephen's preaching the very changes God himself had prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures as blasphemy, either of God or Moses. Thus it was no mere twisting what Jesus or Stephen had said, no mere distortion of their words, which was practiced by the suborned witnesses. Their testimony was totally false.

The Pharisaical plot that led to the murder of Stephen was successful, whereas the opposition of the Sadducees had largely failed; and the circumstances that made it so were: (1) the Pharisees, by far more popular than the Sadducees, were the leaders, their engagement in the opposition deriving, in all probability, from the inroads the new faith had made upon their own party (Acts 6:7); (2) they directed their murderous purpose, not against the Twelve, but against a prominent new personality but recently elevated to popular esteem; (3) it was directed against a single individual, not against a group; (4) they stoned him on the spot, not bothering to procure a verdict; it was exactly the same kind of vicious murder they tried unsuccessfully to perpetrate against Christ himself. The action of the Sanhedrin in this murder was totally illegal, being contrary to the laws both of Rome and of the Jews; and yet it succeeded in their objective of killing their intended victim whose arguments they were unable to answer. Over and beyond the circumstances named above, it was time, in the will of God, for the church to be scattered; and, therefore, God here permitted what he had not permitted before.

PETT, "‘And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came on him, and seized him, and brought him into the council,’

They were in fact so effective in what they said that ‘the people’ (a vague term meaning part of the general population) became stirred up. There appears to have been a general furore, for it resulted in the members of the Sanhedrin having him arrested and brought before the council. It would seem from the fact that he alone was affected by this that the council was in general following its own decision to leave the Apostles to prove themselves. But they clearly saw this outspoken Hellenistic Jewish Christian as different, especially in view of the severe charges being set against him.

It was, of course, the Sanhedrin’s duty to examine any serious charge of blasphemy. If they thought that such a thing had happened they were duty bound to examine it. And we note here that, because it was the result of trouble in the synagogues rather than in the temple, the Pharisees (‘the scribes’) were directly involved. ow that it was in the synagogues and not the Temple that this was happening it had begun to

affect them personally. That is why later Saul, a disciple of the Pharisaic doctor Gamaliel, will be involved. It is now for the first time since the crucifixion the Pharisees who are influential in opposing the infant church.

COSTABLE, "Stephen's accusers stirred up the Jewish people, the Jewish elders (family and tribal leaders), and the scribes (Pharisees) against Stephen. Soldiers then arrested him and brought him before the Sanhedrin as they had done to Jesus, Peter, John, and the other apostles (Acts 4:15; Acts 5:27; cf. Acts 22:30). Until now we have read in Acts that Jewish persecution focused on the apostles, but now we read that other Christians began to experience this persecution.

13 They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law.

BARES, "And set up false witnesses - It has been made a question why these persons are called “false” witnesses, since it is supposed by many that they reported merely the “words” of Stephen. It may be replied that if they did report merely his “words”; if Stephen had actually said what they affirmed, yet they perverted his meaning. They accused him of “blasphemy”; that is, of calumnious and reproachful words against Moses and against God That Stephen had spoken in such a manner, or had designed to “reproach” Moses, there is no evidence. What was said in the mildest manner, and in the way of cool argument, might easily be perverted so as in “their view” to amount to blasphemy. But there is no evidence whatever that Stephen had ever used these words on any occasion, and it is altogether improbable that he ever did, for the following reasons:

(1) Jesus himself never affirmed that he would destroy that place. He uniformly taught that it would be done by the “Gentiles,” Matt. 24. It is altogether improbable, therefore, that Stephen should declare any such thing.

(2) It is equally improbable that he taught that Jesus would abolish the special customs and rites of the Jews. It was long, and after much discussion, before the apostles themselves were convinced that they were to be changed, and when they were changed it was done gradually. See Act_10:14, etc.; Act_11:2, etc.; Act_15:20; Act_21:20, etc. The probability therefore is, that the whole testimony was “false,” and was artfully invented to produce the utmost exasperation among the people, and yet was at the same time so plausible as to be easily believed. For on this point the Jews were particularly sensitive; and it is clear that they had some expectations that the Messiah would produce some such changes. Compare Mat_26:61 with

Dan_9:26-27. The same charge was afterward brought against Paul, which he promptly denied. See Act_25:8.

This holy place - The temple.

The law - The Law of Moses.

CLARKE, "Against this holy place - The temple, that it shall be destroyed.

And the law - That it cannot give life, nor save from death. It is very likely that they had heard him speak words to this amount, which were all as true as the spirit from which they proceeded; but they gave them a very false colouring, as we see in the succeeding verse.

GILL, "And set up false witnesses,.... Having hired them, they brought them and set them before the sanhedrim, to bear witness against Stephen:

which said, this man; meaning Stephen, who was now before the council, at whom they pointed, and whose name, through contempt, they would not mention:

ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place; either the city of Jerusalem, which is sometimes called the holy city, and which was foretold by the angel to Daniel, and by Christ, that it should be destroyed, and which Stephen might speak of; or rather the temple, so the Ethiopic version; in a part of which, or in a place contiguous to it, the sanhedrim might now be sitting:

and the law; the ceremonial law: the sense is, that Stephen was continually telling the people, that in a little time their temple would be destroyed, and an end be put to temple worship, and to all the rituals and ceremonies of the law of Moses; the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions leave out the word "blasphemous"; and so do the Alexandrian copy, and Beza's most ancient one; but as Beza observes, it is certain, or at least it is most likely, that it was not omitted by the false witnesses; though speaking against the temple and the law was sufficient to make good a charge of blasphemy.

HERY, "How they were prepared with evidence ready to produce against him. They were resolved that they would not be run a-ground, as they were when they brought our Saviour upon his trial, and then had to seek for witnesses. These were got ready beforehand, and were instructed to make oath that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God (Act_6:11) - against this holy place and the law (Act_6:13); for they heard him say what Jesus would do to their place and their customs, Act_6:14. It is probable that he had said something to that purport; and yet those who swore it against him are called false witnesses, because, though there was something of truth in their testimony, yet they put a wrong and malicious construction upon what he had said, and perverted it. Observe,

(1.) What was the general charge exhibited against him - that he spoke blasphemous words; and, to aggravate the matter, “He ceases not to speak blasphemous words; it is his common talk, his discourse in all companies; wheresoever he comes, he makes it his business to instil his notions into all he converses with.” It intimates likewise something of contumacy and contempt of admonition. “He has been warned against it, and yet ceases not to talk at this rate.” Blasphemy is justly reckoned a heinous crime (to speak

contemptibly and reproachfully of God our Maker), and therefore Stephen's persecutors would be thought to have a deep concern upon them for the honour of God's name, and to do this in a jealousy for that. As it was with the confessors and martyrs of the Old Testament, so it was with those of the New - their brethren that hated them, and cast them out, said, Let the Lord be glorified; and pretended they did him service in it. He is said to have spoken blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Thus far they were right, that those who blaspheme Moses (if they meant the writings of Moses, which were given by inspiration of God) blaspheme God himself. Those that speak reproachfully of the scriptures, and ridicule them, reflect upon God himself, and do despite to him. His great intention is to magnify the law and make it honourable; those therefore that vilify the law, and make it contemptible, blaspheme his name; for he has magnified his word above all his name. But did Stephen blaspheme Moses? By no means, he was far from it. Christ, and the preachers of his gospel, never said any thing that looked like blaspheming Moses; they always quoted his writings with respect, appealed to them, and said no other things than what Moses said should come; very unjustly therefore is Stephen indicted for blaspheming Moses. But,

PETT, "‘And set up false witnesses, who said, “This man does not cease from speaking words against this holy place, and the law, for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of azareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”

‘Set up false witnesses’ may simply indicate that they set up as witnesses the ones who had been spreading false rumours and were demanding that something be done. It does not necessarily mean that the council were involved in actually themselves fabricating evidence. And even then we must recognise that there was probably some partial truth in what the false witnesses had to say, as Stephen’s own words make clear. Half truths are usually more effective than total lies which can easily be disproved. The accusations were close enough to what Stephen had said to be uncomfortable.

These false witnesses claimed that he had spoken against ‘this holy place’ (the Temple) and against ‘the Law’. This would be seen as an attack on both the things that were important to the chief priests (the Temple) and to the Pharisees (the Law). They then amplified this by pointing out that what he had actually said was that Jesus of azareth would destroy the Temple and would change the customs which Moses had delivered to them.

The probability is that they were exaggerating what he had said rather than totally making it all up. We can compare, with regard to their statement about the Temple, how false witnesses at Jesus trial had claimed, “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple which is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark 14:58). That too we know was probably a distortion of a genuine saying of Jesus (e.g. John 2:19).

Stephen may well have let slip that Jesus had said that the Temple was shortly to be destroyed (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), which would appear blasphemous

enough to those who believed in the inviolability of the Temple. And he may certainly have given the impression that Jesus had amplified some of what the Law taught (as indeed we see in the Sermon on the Mount - ‘But I say to you’ - Matthew 5) and that He had put on the Law a different emphasis from the Pharisees (e.g. Mark 7:5-23). So they might well have seen this as ‘changing the customs of Moses’. The distortions were based on half truths, which are always the most dangerous kind of lie.

He was therefore brought to stand before the council in order to defend himself. And when we consider this we must not assume immediately that the council was at fault, or even antagonistic. We must remember that the council did have the responsibility to look into charges of blasphemy. It was not the fact of the investigation that demonstrated their unreasonableness, but its aftermath.

WHEDO, "False witnesses—Before the council or Sanhedrin. The facts adduced by these witnesses were mainly true; but the witnesses infused a false spirit and intent into them as to make facts be lies.

There were five things of which Stephen is charged with blasphemously predicting a change, namely: Moses, Jehovah, (Moses taking precedence in their talk,) this holy place, (the temple and perhaps city,) the law, (place takes precedence of law with them,) and the customs, or entire body of ritual observances. Touching all these, the predictions of Stephen have become history. The perjury of the witnesses which unjustly produced his death consisted in inventing a blasphemous or hostile animus. Stephen announced the disappearance of all that was transient in these, yet not as necessarily, destroyed, but living essentially in their permanent elements with a renewed vitality in the new Christianity. Hence in his defence Stephen seeks to give such a rehearsal of Israel’s whole history as to show that his Christianity joins on to it as the latest and most natural development of the ew from the Old. So far from hostility or blasphemy against these venerable five, he reverently claims them as among the antecedents to the divine consequents embraced in Jesus Messiah, and would urge his countrymen to identify themselves while they may with the coming ew.

And here commences the great fracture anticipated in our note on Acts 4:1, between Judaism and Christianity, which scattered the Pentecostal Church, and has lasted for ages. (See note on Acts 10:1.) Its termination is indicated in Romans 11:32-36.

COSTABLE, "The false testimony against Stephen was that he was saying things about the temple and the Mosaic Law that the Jews regarded as untrue and unpatriotic (cf. Matthew 26:59-61). Stephen appeared to be challenging the authority of the Pharisees, the Mosaic Law, and a major teaching of the Sadducees, namely, the importance of the temple. He was evidently saying the same things Jesus had said (cf. Matthew 5:21-48; Matthew 12:6; Matthew 24:1-2; Mark 14:58; John 2:19-21).

"Like the similar charge against Jesus (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58; cf. John 2:19-

22), its falseness lay not so much in its wholesale fabrication but in its subtile and deadly misrepresentation of what was intended. Undoubtedly Stephen spoke regarding a recasting of Jewish life in terms of the supremacy of Jesus the Messiah. Undoubtedly he expressed in his manner and message something of the subsidiary significance of the Jerusalem temple and the Mosaic law, as did Jesus before him (e.g., Mark 2:23-28; Mark 3:1-6; Mark 7:14-15; Mark 10:5-9). But that is not the same as advocating the destruction of the temple or the changing of the law-though on these matters we must allow Stephen to speak for himself in Acts 7." [ote: Longenecker, p. 336.]"For Luke, the Temple stands as a time-honored, traditional place for teaching and prayer in Israel, which serves God's purpose but is not indispensable; the attitude with which worshippers use the temple makes all the difference." [ote: Francis D. Weinert, "Luke, Stephen, and the Temple in Luke-Acts," Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:3 (July 1987):88.]

14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of azareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”

BARES, "Shall change - Shall abolish them, or shall introduce others in their place.

The customs - The ceremonial rites and observances of sacrifices, festivals, etc., appointed by Moses.

GILL, "For we have heard him say,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "besides"; but rather these words are a reason, giving evidence to, and supporting the general charge:

that this Jesus of Nazareth; Stephen spoke of, and whom they so called by way of contempt:

shall destroy this place; meaning the temple, as the Ethiopic version renders it; and is the same charge, the false witnesses at Christ's examination brought against him:

and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us; that is, the rites, ceremonies, institutions, and appointments of the Mosaic dispensation; and yet this is no other, than what the Jews themselves say will be done, in the times of the Messiah; for they assert (p), that

"awbl dytel, "in time to come" (i.e. in the days of the Messiah) all sacrifices shall cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving.''

HERY, "Let us see how this charge is supported and made out; why, truly, when the thing was to be proved, all they can charge him with is that he hath spoken blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; and this must be deemed and taken as blasphemy against Moses and against God himself. Thus does the charge dwindle when it comes to the evidence. [1.] He is charged with blaspheming this holy place. Some understand this of the city of Jerusalem, which was the holy city, and which they had a mighty jealousy for. But it is rather meant of the temple, that holy house. Christ was condemned as a blasphemer for words which were thought to reflect upon the temple, which they seemed concerned for the honour of, even when they by their wickedness had profaned it. [2.] He is charged with blaspheming the law, of which they made their boast, and in which they put their trust, when through breaking the law they dishonoured God, Rom_2:23. Well, but how can they make this out? Why, here the charge dwindles again; for all they can accuse him of is that they had themselves heard him say (but how it came in, or what explication he gave to if, they think not themselves bound to give account) that this Jesus of Nazareth, who was so much talked of, shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us. He could not be charged with having said any thing to the disparagement either of the temple or of the law. The priests had themselves profaned the temple, by making it not only a house of merchandise, but a den of thieves; yet they would be thought zealous for the honour of it, against one that had never said any thing amiss of it, but had attended it more as a house of prayer, according to the true intention of it, than they had. Nor had he ever reproached the law as they had. But, First, He had said, Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, destroy the temple, destroy Jerusalem. It is probable that he might say so; and what blasphemy was it against the holy place to say that it should not be perpetual any more than Shiloh was, and that the just and holy God would not continue the privileges of his sanctuary to those that abused them? Had not the prophets given the same warning to their fathers of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans? Nay, when the temple was first built, had not God himself given the same warning: This house, which is high, shall be an astonishment, 2Ch_7:21. And is he a blasphemer, then, who tells them that Jesus of Nazareth, if they continue their opposition to him, will bring a just destruction upon their place and nation, and they may thank themselves? Those wickedly abuse their profession of religion who, under colour of that, call the reproofs given them for their disagreeable conversations blasphemous reflections upon their religion. Secondly, He had said, This Jesus shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us. And it was expected that in the days of the Messiah they should be changed, and that the shadows should be done away when the substance was come; yet this was no essential change of the law, but the perfecting of it. Christ came, not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law; and, if he changed some customs that Moses delivered, it was to introduce and establish those that were much better; and if the Jewish church had not obstinately refused to come into this new establishment, and adhered to the ceremonial law, for aught I know their place had not been destroyed; so that for putting them into a certain way to prevent their destruction, and for giving them certain notice of their destruction if they did not take that way, he is accused as a blasphemer.

CALVI, "14.We have heard It shall full well appear by Stephen’s defense, that he never spake anything touching Moses or the temple without reverence; and yet,

notwithstanding, this was not laid to his charge for nothing, for he had taught the abrogating of the law. But they are false witnesses in this, and suborned to lie, because they corrupt purposely those things which were well and godly spoken. So Christ was enforced to clear himself, that he came, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law; because, when he had preached of abrogating the ceremonies, the wicked wrested this unto another purpose, as if he meant to abolish and take away the whole law. Furthermore, they wrested that wickedly unto the temple of Jerusalem, which he spake of his body. What, was it not objected to Paul, that he taught, “That evil is to be done, that good may come thereof?”

Therefore, there is no cause why we should wonder at this day that that is so falsely misconstrued which we teach godly, well, and profitably; yea, we must rather persuade ourselves thus, that the doctrine of the gospel can never be handled so warily and moderately, but that it shall be subject to false accusations; for Satan, who is the father of lying, doth always bestir himself in his office. Again, because there be many things which are contrary to the reason of the flesh, men are inclined to nothing more than to admit false reports, which corrupt the true and sincere sense of doctrine. This malice of Satan, and the sleights, ought to make us more wary and more circumspect that no preposterous thing, or anything that is improperly spoken, escape us, wherewith they may be armed to fight against us; for we must carefully cut off from the wicked that occasion whereat they snatch. And if we see that, doctrine, which is by us well and godly delivered, corrupted, deformed, and torn in pieces with false reports, we must not repent that we have begun, neither yet is there any cause why we should be more slack hereafter; for it is not meet that we should be flee from the poisoned and venomous bitings of Satan, which the Son of God himself could not escape. In the mean season, it is our part and duty to dash and put away those lies wherewith the truth of God is burdened, like as we see Christ free the doctrine of the gospel from unjust infamy. Only let us so prepare ourselves that such indignity and dishonest dealing may not hinder us in our course.

Because we teach that men are so corrupt, that they are altogether slaves unto sin and wicked lusts, the enemies do thereupon infer this false accusation, that we deny that men sin willingly, but that they are enforced thereunto by some other means, so that they are not in the fault, neither bear any blame; yea, they say farther, that we quench altogether all desire to do well. Because we deny that the works of holy men are for their own worthiness meritorious, because they have always some fault or imperfection in them, they cavil that we put no difference between the good and the evil. (362) Because we say that man’s righteousness consisteth in the grace of God alone, and that godly souls can find rest nowhere else, save only in the death of Christ; they object that by this means we grant liberty to the flesh, (to do whatsoever it will,) that the use of the law may no longer remain. When as we maintain the honor of Christ, which they bestow as it pleaseth them here and there, after that they have rent it in a thousand pieces like a prey; they feign that we are enemies to the saints, they falsely report that we seek the licentiousness of the flesh instead of the liberty of the Spirit. Whilst that we endeavor to restore the Supper of the Lord unto his pure and lawful use; they cry out impudently that we overthrow and destroy the same. Others also which take away all things, as did the Academics,

because that doth not please them which we teach concerning the secret predestination of God, and that out of the Scriptures, lay to our charge despitefully, that we make God a tyrant which taketh pleasure in putting innocent men to death, seeing that he hath already adjudged those unto eternal death which are as yet unborn, and other such things as can be said on this behalf; whereas, notwithstanding, they are sufficiently convicted that we think reverently of God, and that we speak no otherwise than he teacheth with his own mouth. It is a hard matter to endure such envy, yet must we not therefore cease off to defend a good cause. For the truth of God is precious in his sight, and it ought also to be precious unto us, although it be unto the reprobate the savor of death unto death, (2 Corinthians 2:16.)

But now I return unto Stephen’s accusation, the principal point whereof is this, that he blasphemed God and Moses. They do, for good considerations, make the injury common to God and to Moses, because Moses had nothing in his doctrine which was his own or separated from God. They prove this, because he spake blasphemously against the temple and the law; furthermore, they make this the blasphemy, because he said that the coming of Christ had made an end of the temple and the ceremonies. It is not credible that Stephen spake thus as they report; but they maliciously wrest those things which were spoken well and godly, that they may color their false accusation; but although they had changed nothing in the words, yet Stephen was so far from doing any injury to the law and the temple, that he could no way better and more truly praise the same. The Jews did suppose that the temple was quite dishonored, unless the shadowy estate thereof should endure for ever, that the law of Moses was frustrate and nothing worth, unless the ceremonies should be continually in force. But the excellency of the temple and the profit of the ceremonies consist rather in this, whilst that they are referred unto Christ as unto their principal pattern. Therefore, howsoever the accusation hath some color, yet is it unjust and wicked. And although the fact come in question, that is, whether the matter be so as the adversaries lay to his charge, notwithstanding the state [of the question] is properly [one] of quality, for they accuse Stephen, because he taught that the form of the worship of God which was then used should be changed; and they interpret this to be blasphemy against God and Moses; therefore the controversy is rather concerning right (as they say) than the fact itself; for the question is, Whether he be injurious and wicked against God and Moses, who saith, that the visible temple is an image of a more excellent sanctuary, wherein dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead, and who teacheth that the shadows of the law are temporal?

This Jesus of azareth. They speak thus of Christ disdainfully, as if the remembrance of him were detestable. evertheless, it may be gathered out of their accusations, that Stephen did, in the abrogating of the law, set the body against the shadows, and the substance against the figure; for if ceremonies be abolished by Christ, their truth is spiritual. The Jews, which would have them continue for ever, did consider nothing in them but that which was gross, carnal, earthly, and which might be seen with the eyes. Briefly, if the use of ceremonies were continual, they should be frail and should vanish away, because they should have nothing but the

only external show, so that they should have no soundness. Therefore, this is their true perpetuity, when as they are abrogated by the coming of Christ; because it followeth hereupon that the force and effect thereof doth consist in Christ.

Shall change the ordinances. It is out of all doubt that Stephen meant this of the ceremonial part only; but because men are wont to be more addicted to external pomp, these men understand that which was spoken, as if Stephen would bring the whole law to nothing. The principal precepts of the law did indeed concern the spiritual worship of God, faith, justice, and judgment; but because these men make more account of the external rites, they call the rites which are commanded concerning the sacrifices, ordinances of Moses, by excellency. This was bred by the bone from the beginning of the world, and it will never out of the flesh so long as it lasteth. (363) As at this day the Papists acknowledge no worship of God save only in their visors; although they differ much from the Jews, because they follow nothing but the frivolous invention of men for the ordinances of God.

ELLICOTT, "(14) This Jesus of azareth shall destroy this place.—The accusation rested in part on the words of John 2:19, partly on the prediction of Matthew 24:2, which Stephen must have known, and may well have reproduced. It would seem to the accusers a natural inference that He who had uttered the prediction should be the chief agent in its fulfilment.

And shall change the customs.—The words seem to have been used in a half-technical sense as including the whole complex system of the Mosaic law, its ritual, its symbolism, its laws and rules of life, circumcision, the Sabbath, the distinction of clean and unclean meats (Acts 15:1; Acts 21:21; Acts 26:3; Acts 28:17).

PULPIT, "Unto us for us, A.V. We have heard him say, etc. These false witnesses, like those who distorted our Lord's words (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19), doubtless based their accusation upon some semblance of truth. If Stephen had said anything like what Jesus said to the woman of Samaria (John 4:21) or to his disciples (Mark 13:2), or what the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote (8. 13), or what St. Paul wrote to the Colossians (Colossians 2:16, Colossians 2:17), his words might easily be misrepresented by false witnesses, whose purpose it was to swear away his life. This Jesus of azareth. The phrase is most contemptuous. This ( οὗτος), so often rendered in the A.V. "this fellow" (Matthew 26:61, Matthew 26:71; John 9:29, etc.), is of itself an opprobrious expression (comp. Acts 7:40), and the ὁ ναζωραῖος, the azarene, is intended to be still more so.

15 All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

BARES, "Looking stedfastly on him - Fixing the eyes intently on him. They were probably attracted by the unusual appearance of the man, his meekness, his calm and collected fearlessness, and the proofs of conscious innocence and sincerity.

The face of an angel - This expression is one evidently denoting that he manifested evidence of sincerity, gravity, fearlessness, confidence in God. It is used in the Old Testament to denote special wisdom, 2Sa_14:17; 2Sa_19:27. In Gen_33:10, it is used to denote special majesty and glory, as if it were the face of God. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, it is said that the skin of his face shone so that the children of Israel were afraid to come near him, Exo_34:29-30; 2Co_3:7, 2Co_3:13. Compare Rev_1:16; Mat_17:2. The expression is used to denote the impression produced on the countenance by communion with God; the calm serenity and composure which follow a confident committing of all into his hands. It is not meant that there was anything “miraculous” in the case of Stephen, but it is language that denotes calmness, dignity, and confidence in God, all of which were so marked on his countenance that it impressed them with clear proofs of his innocence and piety. The language is very common in the Jewish writings. It is not unusual for deep feeling, sincerity, and confidence in God, to impress themselves on the countenance. Any deep emotion will do this; and it is to be expected with religious feeling, the most tender and solemn of all feeling, will diffuse seriousness, serenity, calmness, and peace not affected sanctimoniousness, over the countenance.

In this chapter we have another specimen of the manner in which the church of the Lord Jesus was established. It was from the beginning amidst scenes of persecution, encountering opposition adapted to try the nature and power of religion. If Christianity was an imposture, it had enemies acute and malignant enough to detect the imposition. The learned, the cunning, and the mighty rose up in opposition, and by all the arts of sophistry, all the force of authority, and all the fearfulness of power, attempted to destroy it in the commencement. Yet it lived; it gained new accessions of strength from every new form of opposition; it evinced its genuineness more and more by showing that it was superior to the arts and malice of earth and of hell.

CLARKE, "Saw his face, as it had been the face of an angel - Sayings like this are frequent among the Jewish writers, who represent God as distinguishing eminent men by causing a glory to shine from their faces. Rabbi Gedalia said that, “when Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh, they appeared like those angels which minister before the face of the Lord; for their stature appeared greater, and the splendor of their faces was like the sun, and their eyes like the wheels of the sun; their beard like clusters of grapes, and their words like thunder and lightning; and that, through fear of them, those who were present fell to the earth.”

The like is said of Moses, in Debarim Rabba, fol. 75. that “when Sammael (Satan)

came to Moses, the splendor of his face was like the sun, and himself resembled an angel of God.” The reader may find several similar sayings in Schoettgen.

It appears that the light and power of God which dwelt in his soul shone through his face, and God gave them this proof of the falsity of the testimony which was now before them; for, as the face of Stephen now shone as the face of Moses did when he came down from the mount, it was the fullest proof that he had not spoken blasphemous words either against Moses or God, else this splendor of heaven had not rested upon him.

The history of the apostolic Church is a series of wonders. Every thing that could prevent such a Church from being established, or could overthrow it when established, is brought to bear against it. The instruments employed in its erection and defense had neither might nor power, but what came immediately from God. They work, and God works with them; the Church is founded and built up; and its adversaries, with every advantage in their favor, cannot overthrow it. Is it possible to look at this, without seeing the mighty hand of God in the whole? He permits devils and wicked men to work - to avail themselves of all their advantages, yet counterworks all their plots and designs, turns their weapons against themselves, and promotes his cause by the very means that were used to destroy it. How true is the saying, There is neither might nor counsel against the Lord!

GILL, "And all that sat in the council,.... The whole sanhedrim,

looking steadfastly on him; to observe whether his countenance altered, his tongue stammered, or he trembled in any part of his body, neither of which appeared; but on the contrary, they

saw his face, as if it had been the face of an angel. The Ethiopic version adds, "of God"; there was such a calmness and serenity in it, which showed his innocence and unconsciousness of guilt; and such a beauty and glory upon it, that he looked as lovely and amiable as the angels of God, who when they appeared to men, it was in very glorious and splendid forms: his face might shine as Moses's did, when he came down from the mount; or in some degree as Christ's did at his transfiguration; and this might, as it ought to have been, taken as an acquittance of him by God, from the charge of blasphemy, either against God or Moses: the Jews (q) say of Phinehas, that when the Holy Ghost was upon him, his face burned or shone like lamps, and Stephen was now full of the Holy Ghost, Act_6:5.

HERY, "We are here told how God owned him when he was brought before the council, and made it to appear that he stood by him (Act_6:15): All that sat in the council, the priests, scribes, and elders, looking stedfastly on him, being a stranger, and one they had not yet had before them, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. It is usual for judges to observe the countenance of the prisoner, which sometimes is an indication either of guilt or innocence. Now Stephen appeared at the bar with the countenance as of an angel. 1. Perhaps it intimates no more than that he had an extraordinarily pleasant, cheerful countenance, and there was not in it the least sign either of fear for himself or anger at his persecutors. He looked as if he had never been better pleased in his life than he was now when he was called out to bear his testimony to the gospel of Christ, thus publicly, and stood fair for the crown of martyrdom. Such an undisturbed serenity, such an undaunted courage, and such an unaccountable mixture

of mildness and majesty, there was in his countenance, that every one said he looked like an angel; enough surely to convince the Sadducees that there are angels, when they saw before their eyes an incarnate angel. 2. It should rather seem that there was a miraculous splendour and brightness upon his countenance, like that of our Saviour when he was transfigured - or, at least, that of Moses when he came down from the mount - God designing thereby to put honour upon his faithful witness and confusion upon his persecutors and judges, whose sin would be highly aggravated, and would be indeed a rebellion against the light, if, notwithstanding this, they proceeded against him. Whether he himself knew that the skin of his face shone or no we are not told; but all that sat in the council saw it, and probably took notice of it to one another, and an arrant shame it was that when they saw, and could not but see by it that he was owned of God, they did not call him from standing at the bar to sit in the chief seat upon the bench. Wisdom and holiness make a man's face to shine, and yet these will not secure men from the greatest indignities; and no wonder, when the shining of Stephen's face could not be his protection; though it had been easy to prove that if he had been guilty of putting any dishonour upon Moses God would not thus have put Moses's honour upon him.

JAMISO, "as ... the face of an angel— a play of supernatural radiance attesting to all who beheld his countenance the divine calm of the spirit within.

SBC, "The Angel-face on Man

There are certain things common to the angel-face on man, amid all the endless variety of type and form—certain things which we may look for (with at least but little exception) on all the faces which carry on them any image, or resemblance to higher worlds, and holier creatures, and by the mention of these we shall make the subject quite practical.

I. Brightness. We cannot be wrong in supposing that there was something luminous in the face of Stephen, which was seen by those who looked steadfastly on him. We always associate brightness with the angels. If Stephen’s countenance had been dull or sad on that day, this in the text had never been recorded of him.

II. Calmness. Stephen was preternaturally calm, and calm in a scene of the utmost excitement. And it is not enough to have a general cheerfulness as the result of a survey of life and the world on the whole. There must be superiority to particular disquietudes, and a keeping of the heart in the stillness of grace, in the great and deep peace of God, in the very presence of any immediate agitations. No one can hope to get the angel-face who furrows and flushes his own with daily excitements, and yields without a struggle to particular temptations in the hope that a general obedience will get him through. The peace of God is to keep the heart and mind as a garrison is kept.

III. Benignity shone out in that wonderful arresting face; without this there could be no resemblance to God Himself, or to His dear Son. He that loveth not, is not of God, and cannot wear an angel-face.

IV. Fearlessness. If an angel were here, to live for a while the life of a man, you would see what it is to be brave. The celestial courage is attainable in terrestrial scenes, if not perfectly yet in large measure, and those who attain it will, by so much more, put on celestial resemblance, and look on human scenes, as it were, with the face of an angel.

V. He who would have the angel-face must look high and far. He must learn to look not

so much at things, as through them, to see what is in them and what is beyond.

A. Raleigh, The Little Sanctuary, p. 295.

There is a very awful power of rebuke entrusted by God to His chosen servants; and well may it fill us with awe that He has invested man, to such a degree, with his own attribute. Yet this history of St. Stephen furnishes us with limitations of its use, which are still more needful for us. For man, in his waywardness, often reverses the method of God; He is silent when He should rebuke in what concerns God’s honour: rebukes when he should be silent, in what concerns his own.

I. They who rebuke should have the commission to rebuke. When we rebuke we speak in His name, and this we dare not presume of ourselves. Since rebuke is the voice of God correcting us, they who utter it should be themselves such as to hope that they speak that voice. We must listen to those in authority as our Lord bade to hearken to those who sat in Moses’ seat, but they who speak must, that they sin not, speak the words of God and see that they mingle not their own.

II. Further, since rebuke is of so awful a character and inflicts suffering, it must be given, not without suffering to ourselves also who give it. We may not inflict pain without pain, suffering without suffering. It were to forget our common Master whose office we take; our common frailty, alike liable to be tempted and to need rebuke; it were to make ourselves as God, who alone cannot suffer. It were rather to make ourselves like Satan, who alone torments without suffering, and is made to suffer, since of himself he will not.

III. We must reprove with humility. To reprove with humility we must reprove only those whom we have a right to reprove; not our elders; not those set over us; not those manifestly superior to ourselves. And to those who seem to be our equals, or who are in any way subject to us, we dare not assume any superiority, as though we were, on the whole, better than they.

IV. Lastly, we must reprove in love. We must not, as we are wont, measure the fault by the vexation it causes ourselves. Rather should we be tender, in proportion as the fault affects ourselves. Our one object should be to win, as we may, souls to Christ, and so we should reprove as may best win them.

E. B. Pusey, Sermons from Advent to Whitsuntide, vol. i., p. 75.

The face of Stephen in this world we can never see. We can never read here its revelation of character. Now it is in perfect loveliness, like Him who is seen by His saints in His perfection. One day we may read—if we attain—that special message which God traced before the council in momentary beauty before it was hidden in a bloody grave. The vision of the martyr was a mighty message; but his lips threw that message into words. These words are in part at least recorded for our learning; and if we cannot see the face, the record we can read.

I. Note, first, that earnest desire for truth, which is the first real requisite to its attainment. St. Stephen had evidently desired truth, and searched and studied the Scriptures, and that eager and loving spirit had had its reward. One example of that reward is seen in the vigorous intellectual grasp of the subject, which he had to handle

with readiness and under the appalling pressure of a trial for life. All the gifts of Stephen, his earnest desire for knowledge, his subtle dialectic, his noble eloquence, were turned full upon the subject of highest interest, upon the mysterious revelation of eternal truth.

II. There were higher endowments in the martyr than any mere attributes of mind. No mental vigour in such a desperate crisis would have availed to any purpose, unless it had been seconded by a boldness and intrepidity of spirit. Struggling for a cause, new, untried, and deemed altogether contemptible, he possessed his soul with a heroic patience, and bore his part with literally unexampled courage.

Note also his wealth of tenderness. The scene at the death of St. Stephen reminds us of the scene at the death of Christ; the words of prayer, which rose amid the hailstorm of cruel stones, ring through our souls with an effect of penetration, like that of the looks of the great Intercession, at the moment of the nailing to the cross. Do you ask the secret of such a combination of tenderness and courage in any tempted man? There is one answer: an unshaken, a deep, and supernatural union with Jesus Christ.

III. We all surely must, in our degree, hope to bear our testimony at all hazards to truth. Well then, let us note the conditions on which such fulfilment of our reason of life depends. (1) The soul must be true to itself. (2) In the world of revealed faith, all power of witness depends upon conviction. Act with courage upon conviction, and act with charity. (3) When all possible struggle is over we may witness to Jesus by the calmness of a loving resignation.

W. J. Knox Little, Manchester Sermons, p. 215.

CALVI, "15.And when they had beheld. Men do commonly in places of judgment turn their eyes toward the party arraigned, when as they look for his defense. He saith that Stephen appeared like to an angel; this is not spoken of his natural face, but rather of his present countenance. For whereas the countenance of those which are arraigned useth commonly to be pale, whereas they stammer in their speech, and show other signs of fear, Luke teacheth that there was no such thing in Stephen, but that there appeared rather in him a certain majesty. For the Scripture useth sometimes to borrow a similitude of angels in this sense; as 1 Samuel 24:9; 2 Samuel 14:17; 2 Samuel 19:27

BESO, "Acts 6:15. And all that sat in the council — The priests, rulers, scribes, and elders; looking steadfastly on him — As being a stranger, and one whom they had not till now had before them, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel —Covered with a supernatural lustre, like that which appeared on the face of our Lord when he was transfigured, or at least that of Moses’s face, when he came down from the mount. Hereby God designed to put honour on his faithful witness, and confusion on his persecutors and judges, whose sin would be highly aggravated, and would indeed be rebellion against the visible glory of God, if, notwithstanding this, they proceeded against him. They reckoned his preaching of Jesus as the Christ, was destroying both Moses and the law; and God bears witness to him with the same glory as he did to Moses, when he gave the law by him. And it was an astonishing instance of the incorrigible hardness and wickedness of their hearts, that they could murder a man on whom God put such a visible glory, similar to that of their great legislator. But we know what little impression other miracles made upon them, the

truth of which they were compelled to acknowledge.

COFFMA, "Saul of Tarsus was in that council, and it is a most reasonable conjecture that he reported this phenomenon to Luke. As to what it was, many prefer to view it as merely the radiance of holy and righteous zeal in the person of the martyred Stephen; but it is not safe to limit it to that which is purely natural. As Lange said: "It obviously describes an objective, and, indeed, an extraordinary phenomenon."[27] Whatever it was, Paul never forgot it; nor could he ever erase from his memory the sorrow of that tragic day when the first martyr of the Christian religion sealed his faith with his blood.

EDOTE:

[27] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 110.

COSTABLE, "Luke may have intended to stress Stephen's fullness with the Holy Spirit that resulted in his confidence, composure, and courage by drawing attention to his face. Moses' face similarly shone when he descended from Mt. Sinai after seeing God (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Exodus 34:29; Exodus 34:35). Perhaps Stephen's hearers recalled Moses' shining face. If so, they should have concluded that Stephen was not against Moses but like Moses. Stephen proceeded to function as an angel (a messenger from God), as well as looking like one, by bringing new revelation to his hearers, as Moses had. The Old Covenant had come through angelic mediation at Mt. Sinai (Deuteronomy 33:2 LXX cf. Hebrews 2:2). ow revelation about the ew Covenant was coming through one who acted like and even looked like an angel.

WHEDO, "THE SAHEDRI Directly facing him sits upon an elevated seat, at the middle point of the semicircular line, the high priest. It is probably no longer Caiaphas, who after twenty years of office had been deposed, but Theophilus, a son of Annas, and so a member of the same great Sadducean family who so long monopolized the supremacy at Jerusalem.

Face… angel—He who was accused of blaspheming Moses bears the radiance that authenticated Moses in his own face. (Exodus 35:29-35.) It was a faint beam from that glory of which he spoke in Acts 7:2, and which his own eyes beheld in Acts 7:55. Awed by his beaming face the Sanhedrin gaze steadfastly on him, and for a while listen with rapt and silent attention.

ELLICOTT, "(15) Looking stedfastly on him.—St Luke’s characteristic word. (See ote on Acts 1:10.)

Saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.—We can scarcely be wrong in tracing this description to the impression made at the time on St. Paul, and reported by him to St. Luke. It must be interpreted by the account given of angels as appearing in the form of “young men” (Mark 16:5), and so throws some light upon St. Stephen’s age, as being, probably, about the same standing as St. Paul, and implies that his face was lighted up as by the radiance of a divine brightness. The

phrase seems to have been more or less proverbial. In the expanded version of the Book of Esther, which appears in the LXX., she says to the King, as in reverential awe, “I saw thee, O my lord, as an angel of God” (Esther 5:2). In 2 Samuel 14:17, the words refer to the wisdom of David rather than to anything visible and outward. Here the impression left by St. Luke’s narrative is that the face of St. Stephen was illumined at once with the glow of an ardent zeal and the serenity of a higher wisdom.

PETT, "‘And all who sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.’

But when Stephen came before them they were astonished, for when they gazed at his face it looked like the face of an angel. This probably means that he was so filled with the sense of the presence of God that his face in some way shone (compare Daniel 10:6; Matthew 28:3). This need not be seen as a miracle, but it should certainly have reminded them of how when Moses came to the people with a message from God his face too had shone (Exodus 34:29-35). They should therefore have realised that here was a man who had come to them with a message from God, and have been more open. He bore the truth of his own testimony on his face.

We should note how this phenomenon is brought into account later. Here they saw his face as though it was the face of an angel. In Acts 7:53 the sentence against the Sanhedrin is that ‘they received the Law as it was ordained by angels and kept them not.’ Luke is bringing out how God was here giving the Sanhedrin a huge opportunity, speaking through His ‘angel’ (messenger), as He had previously to Israel when He gave them the Law. The point is that in the end they responded to neither. Here was God’s angel bringing a greater covenant, but they missed their opportunity once again.

COKE, "Acts 6:15. Saw his face, &c.— Many commentators interpret this as a proverbial expression of the majesty and beauty of his countenance, arising from the transport of inward joy in the consciousness of his innocence, and the expectation of glory, though he had so cruel a sentence and execution in view. And upon this, the translation of 1729 takes the unpardonable liberty of rendering it, they saw an air of majesty in his aspect; but it seems rather to mean, that there was a supernatural splendour on his face, resembling that of Moses when he came down from conversing with God on mount Sinai. They reckoned that his preaching of Jesus to be the Christ, was to destroy both Moses and the law; and God bears witness to Stephen with the same glory as he did to Moses, when he gave the law by him. The Jews never devised or conceived any thing greater of their forefathers, or their most illustrious prophets, than what they now beheld in the countenance of Stephen. In this view, it was indeed a most astonishing instance of the incorrigible hardness and wickedness of their hearts, that they could murder a man on whom God put such a visible glory, similar to that of their patriarchs and prophets, and their great legislator in particular.

But we know what little impression other miracles made upon them, the truth of

which they were compelled to acknowledge. See ch. Acts 4:16.

Inferences.—From the instance recorded in the first part of this chapter, we see how difficult it is, even for the wisest and best of men to manage a great multitude of affairs, without inconvenience, and without reflection. It will therefore be our prudence not to engross too much business into our own hands; but to be willing to divide it with our brethren and inferiors, allotting to each their proper province, that the whole may proceed with harmony and order.

How solicitous should we be against the doing any thing through partiality; but especially so, in the distribution of charities. It is a solemn trust, for which the characters at least of those concerned, are to answer to the world now, and which they themselves must, ere long, account for to God. Such persons therefore should be willing to receive information of the truth of particular cases; willing to compare a variety of them; and then select such as, in their consciences, they are persuaded it is the will of God they should in present circumstances regard, and in such or such proportion prefer to the rest.

In religious societies, it may be highly proper, that, after the example here given, proper persons to perform this office should be appointed: it is their business to serve tables. Happy those societies which make choice of men of an attested character, and evincing themselves to be full of the Holy Spirit, by the virtues and graces of a Christian temper.

While these good men are dealing forth their liberal contributions, the ministers should devote themselves with all attention to prayer and to the ministry of the word. Let those who would administer that word with comfort and success, remember of how great importance it is that it be watered with prayer, falling upon it as the former and latter rain, and especially see to it, that by the constant exercise of lively devotion, in secret, in their families, and on other proper social occasions, they keep their graces vigorous and active; that so, living continually in a state of nearness to God, they may be qualified to speak in his name with that dignity, tenderness, and authority, which nothing but true devotion can naturally express, or long retain.

Who can fail to adore that efficacy of divine grace, whereby a multitude of the Jewish priests were made obedient to the faith? Let us heartily pray, that if there be any who claim a sacred character, and who yet, out of regard to worldly things, oppose the power and purity of the gospel,—they may be convinced by the influences of the blessed Spirit, that they can have no interest in contradiction to the truth; and that they are happy who purchase, at the highest price, that gospel which may enrich them for ever.

In whatsoever station we are fixed, whether in the world, or in the church, may we always remember our obligation to plead the cause of the gospel, and to render a reason of the hope that is in us! If this engage us in disputation with men of corrupt minds, we must still hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, as

knowing He is faithful that hath promised. Hebrews 10:23.

The vilest charge, as we see in the chapter before us, may be fixed upon the most worthy men. Piety may be defamed as blasphemy; and that which is true love of our country, as treason against it. But (blessed consideration for the oppressed!) there is one supreme Lawgiver and Judge, who will not fail, sooner or later, to plead the cause of injured innocence. When we read therefore of this vile attack made by perjury upon the character and life of Stephen, we may take occasion to adore that wise and powerful Providence, which so remarkably exerts itself to defend our reputation and our lives against those false tongues which run through the earth, and which, were it not for that secret and invisible restraint, might, like a two-edged sword, so quickly destroy both.

How loud is the clamour here raised by malice and fraud against innocence and truth! Incessant blasphemy is charged on one of the most pious of men. And can we indeed wonder at it, when we reflect that thus it was charged even upon Christ himself? If they called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?—His disciple learns of him not to render evil for evil, but answers their calumnies in the language of calm reason, and meek conviction.

REFLECTIOS.—1st, The admirable peace and harmony of the church suffer some slight interruption, and yet good arises out of this great toil. We have,

1. The cause, whether real or imaginary, of the discontent which appeared among some of the members of the church. In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied; for the sufferings of the apostles, so far from checking the progress of the gospel, proved its furtherance; there arose a murmuring of the Grecians, or Hellenist Jews, who were chiefly foreigners, and were so called from the Greek language, which they spoke, and used in their synagogues, against the Hebrews, who were inhabitants of Judea, and made use of the Hebrew language in reading the Old Testament; and they complained, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, as if there was a partiality shewn to the poor who were Hebrews, and theirs either passed over; or scantily supplied. As the Hellenist Jews lay under some kind of disadvantage as foreigners, they were jealous lest they should be slighted; for those who are poor, are too apt to be querulous, to eye with jealousy what is bestowed on others, and to clamour, as if any kindness done to them was an injustice to themselves. ote; (1.) Money matters are too often the causes of much dissatisfaction even among those who profess to be dead to the world. (2.) In the best ordered church some imperfections will be found, and the most careful pastors may hear of some real or pretended cause of complaint.

2. The apostles propose an excellent expedient to remove all cause of murmuring; and this not only for the satisfaction of others, but for their own relief; their necessary employment, in preaching the word of God, being too much interrupted by minding these secular concerns. They assembled the multitude of the disciples, it being a matter of common concern, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables; these avocations of providing for the poor,

diverting them too much from the great business of preaching the gospel, and governing the church. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint ever this business, men of established reputation and integrity, endued with a distinguished measure of the gifts and graces of the Spirit to enable them for the faithful discharge of their office, and whose wisdom and prudence are eminent, that they may manage the church's stock to the greatest advantage. These were to be chosen by the people themselves, who could not afterwards reasonably find fault with the persons of their own appointment; and the apostles would ordain them to their office, that they might be invested with due authority, and that those who were concerned might know to whom they must apply in these matters: but we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word, as our more immediate and proper employment. ote; (1.) They who are appointed to any holy office, even the lowest in the church, may here behold the requisites thereto. They must be persons of blameless character, men of parts and abilities for the discharge of their trust, with wisdom, and above all experimentally acquainted with the grace of God in their souls, and partakers of the Holy Ghost. To ordain persons immoral, ignorant, destitute of experimental religion, and to count them fit for ministering in the church, who are fit for nothing else; how shocking! how contrary to the apostolical practice! and what a scandal must such be to the office they bear! (2.) Divested as much as possible of worldly cares, Christ's immediate ambassadors should be occupied wholly in his work and the service of immortal souls, preaching his gospel in season and out of season, and watering with their prayers the labours of the pulpit, that God may give the increase.

3. The proposal met with general approbation, and, after serious deliberation, the church, with joint concurrence and perfect unanimity, made choice of seven persons, whose names are recited, and seem to be of the Hellenist Jews; which would most effectually serve to silence all future murmurings among them. Stephen stands first in the catalogue, with a most honourable testimony borne to him; he was full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, a man eminent for gifts and graces. Philip, who follows him, we find afterwards successfully employed in preaching the gospel, ch. 8: Of the rest we have no particular account, unless icolas, as some have suggested, was the founder of that sect which St. John mentions with abhorrence, Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15. These seven being presented to the apostles, they prayed with them and for them, that they might be qualified for their work, and approve themselves faithful, and then, by the imposition of hands, solemnly separated them for this service, to which they were chosen.

4. The church continued to increase greatly, the intestine murmurs being silenced, the apostles being more disencumbered, and all zealously attending to their several charges. Thus the gospel word spread its blessed influence around; the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem, where, during our Lord's ministry, few comparatively seem to have believed in him; and what is still more astonishing, and to be reckoned among the chief wonders of grace, a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith, who had been the most inveterate enemies of Christ and his gospel, but now embraced the profession of Christianity, and proved, by their holy

conversation, the unfeigned faith which was in them. ote; True faith in Jesus as a Saviour, ever produces sincere obedience to him as our Master.

2nd, Stephen, the first of the seven deacons, not only discharged the office to which he was appointed, but also appeared a zealous preacher of the gospel.

1. He was full of faith and power; endued with an eminent measure of courage and zeal for Christ, and, in confirmation of the truths that he preached, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

2. He appeared a bold disputant against those who opposed the cause of truth. There arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, such Jews as were honoured with the freedom of the city of Rome, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia, and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. These Hellenist Jews and proselytes, bring generally the greatest zealots for Judaism, and perhaps being eminently skilled in Grecian literature, thought they could soon confute and confound this zealous advocate for Christianity, and challenged him to a public disputation. Probably Saul of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, was among the foremost of them. Stephen declined not the opportunity of vindicating the glorious truths of the gospel; and this he did with such clearness of argument, force of reasoning, energy of diction, and piercing application, that they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake; confounded, silenced, and unable to make any reply which carried the shadow of argument.

3. Enraged at being thus baffled, and instigated by malice and revenge, they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God; endeavouring by perjury and murder to silence him for ever, whose arguments they felt themselves so utterly unable to answer. And, working upon their prejudices and passions, they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and in a popular tumult they came upon him, and caught him, as a criminal, and brought him to the council, as a blasphemer; and set up false witnesses which they had hired, and instructed what to swear against Stephen, who said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, the temple, and against the law. For we have heard him say, what fully amounts to the charge we produce against him, that this Jesus, the contemptible azarene, who was crucified, shall destroy this place, this sacred house, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us; abolishing all the ceremonial institutions of our celebrated law-giver, and introducing others of his own appointment in their stead.

Such was the charge; which, if real, was far from amounting to blasphemy; and these things actually came to pass; though probably even in this they falsified, as the apostles themselves seem not to have been yet apprized, that the ceremonial law should be utterly abolished; but whatever he might have said, we may suppose they put upon it the more malicious construction that it would bear. ote; It is no new thing for the faithful preachers of the gospel to be branded as blasphemers; and it is only wonderful that, when the enemies of the gospel make no conscience of an oath, they do not by more frequent perjuries attempt to blacken or destroy those whom

they so much abhor.

4. God owned his suffering servant by a signal mark of his favour, visible even to his persecutors. All that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, to observe if he betrayed any tokens of fear or guilt, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel; such deliberate courage, such undisturbed serenity, such majesty and mildness sat on his countenance; nay more, a divine splendour beamed from it, like that of Moses when he came from the mount, and seemed to make him appear more than human.

PULPIT, "The angel-face on man.

Something of a proverbial character rests on the expression, "Saw his face as it had been the face of an angel". Some think that this description" may be traced to the impression made at the time on St. Paul and reported by him to St. Luke." There was "calm dignity," but there was something more and better; there was the vision of Christ as present with him, and the radiant face was the response he made to the vision. Compare the skin of Moses' face shining, and the glory of the Savior on the Mount of Transfiguration. "The face of Stephen was already illumined with the radiancy of the new Jerusalem." "The words describe the glory that brightened the features of Stephen, supported as he was by the consciousness of the Divine favor." Illustrate the truly wonderful power of varied expression which is found in the human face. It responds at once to the moods of the spirit, changing suddenly at changing moods, and gaining fixity of form and feature according to the settled character and habit of the mind. What a man is can be read from his face. How true this was of Stephen may be shown by dwelling on the following points:—

I. THE CHAGE I STEPHE'S FACE WAS THE SIG OF CHERISHED FEELIG. It tolls us the tone and mood of his mind—what he was thinking about, and what he was feeling. Reveals to us the man of God and man of faith and man of prayer, who lived in communion of spirit with the glorified Savior. Lines of care come into faces of worldly Christians. Heart-peace, rest in God, absorbing love to Christ, make smile-play over the face. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he," and so is he in expression of countenance. And the pleasant, the angel, face makes holy witness for Christ before men, winning them to the love of him who thus can glorify his saints.

II. THE CHAGE I STEPHE'S FACE IDICATED SUPERIORITY TO HIS SURROUDIGS. Describe them, and show how reasonably we might have looked for alarm and fear. Well Stephen knew that all this wild rage and tumult and false witnessing meant his death. But there is no quailing. It might have been a day of joy and triumph, to judge by Stephen's face. Compare St. Paul's words, "one of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself." Outwardly a man may be tossed, tempted, tried, imperiled, tortured, but inwardly he may be kept in perfect peace, having his mind stayed on God. Such mastery of circumstance is just as truly the great Christian triumph now, though our circumstances are rather those of perplexity and pressure than of peril to life and property. Overcoming the world, as

Stephen did, we too may win and wear the "angel-face."

III. THE CHAGE I STEPHE'S FACE WAS A RESPOSE TO THE COSCIOUS EARESS OF JESUS. Of this we have intimation in Acts 7:56, but we are apt to regard Stephen's exclamation as indicating a sudden and passing vision. It is much more probable that it kept with him all through the wild and exciting scene. When they set him before the council, the "angel-face" was there, and the vision of the Christ was in his soul. While he spoke his defense, the Lord stood by him and strengthened him; and when the stones flew about him and struck him down, the vision kept in his soul; the blinded eyes saw it, and it never passed until it became the enrapturing and eternal reality—his bliss for evermore to be with Jesus. The light on Stephen's face was the smile that recognized the best of Friends, who was so graciously fulfilling his promise, and being with his suffering people always. That smile told on the persecuting Sanhedrim. They would not forget it or ever get the vision out of their minds. It would secretly convict, if it did not openly win. Can there be still, and now, in our milder spheres, the angel-face on man—on us? And if so, then on what things must the winning and the wearing of that angel-face depend?—R.T.

PULPIT, "The logic of heavenly luster.

"And all … saw his face as it had been the face of an angel." The two occasions of the mention of Stephen have already apprised us of an exceptional spirituality marking his character, and it cannot but be that the exceptional splendor and luminousness of his countenance here spoken of are more or less connected with that fact. The hour of martyrdom is drawing on apace for Stephen, and he is already raised to that little company which numbered in it—Moses in one of the most critical portions of his history (Exodus 34:29, Exodus 34:30; 2 Corinthians 3:7), and Jesus himself (Matthew 17:2; Luke 9:29) on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is being given to Stephen to ripen into an "angel of God" even on earth. The fact of the distinct record of Stephen's appearance now justifies our paying even some additional attention to what in itself would naturally have attracted our interested inquiry. The interest gathers round this central inquiry—Why was such special and such peculiar kind of distinction vouchsafed to Stephen? "His face was as it had been the face of an angel."

I. A HIGHLY SPIRITUAL FORCE OF CHARACTER MARKED HIM AS AT LEAST FIT OBJECT OF THIS LUSTER. It is not open to us to say that this was the cause in any sense, but much less the one cause, of the luster with which the countenance of Stephen shone. But we must remark on it as showing the presence of one essential condition. In a biography almost as brief (omitting his defense) as that of Enoch, three things are reiterated, intimating to us the highly developed spirituality of Stephen.

1. He was "full of faith." Every true disciple of Jesus Christ must, no doubt, be "rooted in" faith. He must "know whom he believes." But to be "full of faith"

probably signifies something beyond this. A man may truly have faith, and if he have it he will live and "walk" by it, yet may be the very man who will need to have full allowance made for him as respects the distinction of faith and sight. ot just so the man who is "full of faith." For him faith has come to be such an "evidence of things not seen," and such an embodied "substance of things hoped for," that his "conversation is in heaven" already, and his countenance more really fitted to shine with celestial radiance. In fact, we may rest assured there is a great difference between even a very genuine possession of faith and a being "full of faith." The former is true of very many who are exceedingly far removed from the latter. That faith which scripturally and apostolically postulates the distinction of sight has in its fullness the power to efface the very distinction itself has made, and throws two worlds into one. We do not at all doubt it was so now with Stephen, who for the fulness of faith now lived and thought, spoke and worked, "as seeing him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27); and that was in itself the earnest of a radiant countenance.

2. He was "full of the Holy Ghost." It must be allowed on all hands that this fact justifies us much more in an affirmation of the presence now of something in the nature of a predisposing qualification. In the modern Church the work and the fruit of the Spirit is grievously underrated. Hence its weakness, hence its want of enterprise, hence its comparative deadness. We have ample Scripture warrant for distinguishing degrees in the Spirit's operation; nor can we forget how, while to others according to measure the gifts of the Spirit are vouchsafed, of One it is said, "God giveth not the Spirit by measure" to him (John 3:34). How intensely full was St. John of the Spirit, when as he rather puts it, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10)! What the countenance of St. John then was we know not, nor was there one to see it and tell us; but we are in no ignorance of what his rapt state of mind was, and to what the Spirit exalted him. It is not, therefore, the unwarranted thing to think that the Spirit's force in the nature of the man in whom he largely dwells should betoken itself in physical manifestation. The legitimate conclusion would rather lead us to a conviction that restraint is self-imposed on the Spirit, in order that his blessed manifestation should neither overpower the individual in whom he largely may dwell, nor supersede moral attraction and moral evidence for all who stand by. How humiliating, how unspeakably mournful, to think how seldom it appears true of any in these ages that they are "full of the Holy Ghost," or that in their case the Spirit needs to shade off any of his effulgence!

3. He abounded in zeal. The zeal of Jesus and his truth, of Jesus and "this life" that came through him, went far "to eat him up" (John 2:17). Though Stephen was not an apostle, and though he was and had only just been formally elected and appointed a deacon, yet he did the works of an apostle, and, if we may judge from appearances, did much more than the more part of them. He was first to be chosen deacon (verse 5), a circumstance which marks probably not his high spiritual character alone, but also his repute for practical diligence. It is then distinctly testified of him (verse 8) that he "did great wonders and miracles among the people." or this alone. He stood to his position, did not refuse to maintain by disputation the truth he had spoken, and did so hold his own that, unscrupulous

though his opponents were, "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake." This was to be a thorough believer and a thorough-going champion. Argument will often fire the passions and light up the countenance; and holy argument will fire noble passions and will make a luster dawn upon the face. Yet still it is God's sovereign act to select his "chosen vessel," and his surpassing mercy that fits any one to be such.

II. THE RESPOSIBILITY OF A HIGHLY CRITICAL OCCASIO OW LAY WITH STEPHE.

1. From our modern point of view, interest in watching him now would have been possibly not a little increased by the thought that we were watching the first layman on his trial. Though the thing would not have been so worded then, yet we may readily imagine a quickened gaze on the part at least of all the apostles, and probably of many others, it was gradually dawning upon the Jewish nation and the world that a prophet, a priest, an apostle, was what he did; and Peter begins to be impressed with what leads him soon to say, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but … he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." either Peter nor any of his fellow-apostles was an hereditary or trained priest, but they were all conscious that they were "called to be apostles." The vast circle of the true Christian preachers and prophets begins further still to enlarge when Peter and the apostles fall behind a while, and Stephen, just now a plain man and only most recently titled deacon, fills up the whole foreground, in an episode of almost unsurpassed interest in the whole of the Acts of the Apostles. Since, then, Stephen was not "called apostle," the luster which now lighted up his countenance was in part his Master's gracious and bountiful substitute. God does not forget the special needs of special occasions, and if, as is probably the case, Stephen was not aware of his own appearance, there cannot be a doubt that it secured for him, from the first word of his opening defense, a special attention. The occasion was one of special responsibility, therefore, for Stephen, inasmuch as he is employed to bring into uncommon prominence, in one aspect of it, the dawning comprehensiveness of Christianity.

2. The number of those present, the very various description of them that they were led on to the attack by a very confederacy of infuriated synagogues, the determined and excited tactics resorted to of false witnesses, wresting words and statements of Stephen out of their connection,—all these contributed to give

III. THE SEALIG OF HIS FAITHFUL TESTIMOY WITH HIS LIFE-BLOOD WAS OW IMMIET FOR STEPHE. And this is like the grace and free liberality of the Master. Has Stephen's career been very short?—yet he has run bravely the race, he has fought well the fight. And even before the crown above, and before the glorious witness there, he shall have a telling and to-be-remembered witness here also, on the very scene of his conflict, and in the very eyes of those whom he sought to save, but who sought to destroy him. Either we do often call that a miracle which needs not the name, or we very often fail to call that a miracle which begs the name; for tender analogies to the thing wrought now for Stephen

have been even frequent since and up to the present. When the end comes very near for the faithful, how mellowed his feeling and how calmed his temper and how serene his countenance! When the last hour approaches, how often does physical pain resign her hitherto implacable tyranny, and mental aberration subside into a resumption of childlike instead of childish disposition and docility of thought and feeling! When the last moments arrive for those who have "struggled long with sins and doubts and fears," but who nevertheless have been faithful both to work and to love, how often does the actual countenance speak of the peace that reigns undisturbed within, and sights are seen and songs are heard which nothing but the callousness of the infidel can possibly deny or throw doubt upon! This very thing was going to be so for Stephen, while he is being stoned. But it is anticipated by—shall we say—a brief half-hour. For his last argument he shall have more light within than ever before—the logic of very light; and in his last gazing and impassioned looks turned on the gainsaying people his face shall reflect the light of God.—B.