The Execution of Stephen the Deacon

 This is a "transcript" of my Life Group lesson on Sunday, March 17.

One common misconception about the persecution in the early church was that the Roman authorities were responsible for it. Rather, it was done by the Jewish religious leaders, mostly the Sadducees. Roman persecution started in 50s CE with Nero because he was an evil maniac. Persecution was localized based on what the governor of that region let go on. Roman persecution throughout the whole empire did not get severe until after 100 CE and at different periods, depending on the emperor.  Romans mainly persecuted because Christianity was spreading and it ran counter to the required sacrificing to pagan gods and worship of the emperor (imperial cult), but there was also the accusation that it eroded the values of the empire. (That general accusation is true today).

           

Sadducees ran the temple. They did not believe in a Messiah or an afterlife. They were probably the ones responsible to the “den of robbers” accusation by Jesus. They also kept a temple guard, and those are the soldiers or “police” mentioned in the early part of Acts. On the other hand, the Pharisees were respected by the people, but they were also the ones who taught the strict interpretation of the law.

 

Stephen’s accusers are incensed because they saw him as blaspheming the law and the temple. Not so much God, but the two things the Sadducees were responsible for and held on to for power. It seems clear that the their motivation in accusing and executing Stephen  was fear of losing control and power.

           

 Much of the persecution today is for the same reason. Christian faith is seen as disrupting the traditional power structures, for example, the primacy of family, the religious hierarchies. It also teaches equality of human beings (male, female, different ethnicities), which goes against the inherent racialism and tribalism of most cultures and religions. It also teaches that there is a different authority, God, above all the others. These three reasons came into play in the early church. 

 

So, who is Stephen? One of the deacons chosen as leadership over the daily “running of practical things” in the church when a problem with charitable giving arose.

 

Side bar: Deacons v. elders? I Timothy 3 speaks of deacons. They are distinct from bishops (overseers). Churches that have elders put them in more spiritual authority over the deacons. Elders – older, more authority and wisdom.

Since deacons function like elders in many churches, the relationship between them can get confused. But we can see how they should relate to one another by again considering their distinct biblical responsibilities:

1. Elders are to shepherd the flock by authoritative biblical teaching and oversight (1 Tim. 3:2; 1 Pet 5:2).
2. Deacons are to care for the physical and fiscal needs of the church, to create unity in the body, and to support the work of the pastors and elders. The word “deacon” means servant, and the roots of the office seem to lie in the need for a group of people to care for the physical needs of the church.
3. The deacons do their work, in other words, so that the elders can devote themselves to the ministry of the word, prayer, and oversight (Acts 6:1-6; Acts 20). This means:
4. The elders and deacons are not like two houses of legislature, who work together to govern the church. Deacons don’t provide oversight over the whole church and its spiritual well-being. The elders do.
5. The deacons then serve the church by carrying out the vision of the elders. They may be charged with administrative oversight over a particular area of the church’s life, but they are given the charge in order to follow the general instruction and guidance of the elders.
6. Ultimately, deacons are called to submit to the leadership of the elders like every other church member is (Heb. 13:7; 17).

(Some of this material has been adapted from By Whose Authority by Mark Dever, 38-39)

However, being a deacon rather than elder or apostle did not keep Stephen from delivering the word or doing miracles. It is interesting that the first martyr was not an apostle.

 

The accusation: "Stephen speaks against the law and the temple (not God the Father) because he quotes Jesus who (allegedly spoke against the law ("customs Moses delivered to us") and temple ("he said he would destroy this place and change the customs").

 

Who were his accusers?:  zealous Jews who had been slaves in different parts of the Roman empire and had moved back to Jerusalem when they were freed. (Freedmen’s Synagogue).

 

Part of distinction between Hellenist Jews v. Hebraic Jews. This distinction is brought up in Acts 6:1 for the first time and is found throughout the rest of Acts and New Testament. There is controversy over what it means fully, but Hellenistic Jews spoke Greek rather than Hebrew and were more the “outsider” group in the early church at first, perhaps living more like the Gentile culture and emigrating from other places. But this “outsider” status did not last not for long in the early church. The deacons were all Hellenized Jews. Acts 6-8 are the stories of two Hellenized Jews who broke through the barriers—first martyr, first non-ethnic Jew to be evangelized (Ethiopian official)

 

So we come to Acts 7. Stephen is accused, and the high priest lets him defend himself. Stephen lets it rip. 2-53. He gives a history of Judaism since Abraham. Some scholars say he contradicts the Old Testament, and there do seem to be some, but they are also explainable in that he is summarizing or “telescoping.”  He “hits the high points” of the patriarchs (Abraham, Joseph in Egypt, covenant of circumcision, twelve tribes, slavery in Egypt, Moses [lots of time on him, 17-44, to show that the Jews had disregarded Moses’ law for centuries], David and Solomon, 45-50, ending with two quotations from the Old Testament, 49-50, to show that they were putting too much emphasis on the temple.

 

Then he brings them back to Moses: stiff-necked and “not cut, not open” in heart and ears. "And now you are guilty of the murder of the Messiah."

 

Stephen’s death mirrors Jesus: awareness “receive my spirit,” “do not charge them with this,” “outside of the city,” accepting, not fighting or fearful. He "fell asleep."

 

8:1-4: the outcome:  It doesn’t seem like the high priest was too worried about Stephen’s stoning and let it go on, even though Gamaliel had given the advice to leave them alone and it would die out if God wasn’t behind it. Good advice, but not heeded, see Acts 8. 6:12 makes it clear that this happened in front of the “council,” the whole Sanhedrin, not just a small group.

 

People make a big deal of Jesus standing or seated, as if Jesus can’t do what he wants in heaven. Seated is symbolic of authority, standing as advocating or welcoming. We can get too literal about everything in the Bible. 

 

Take aways: Know the facts. Persecution is not necessarily, or even mostly, governmental (it is in North Korea; less so in parts of Middle East where the religious leaders are part of or all of the government, like Iran).  Christianity is always seen as dangerous to the cultural order, even today in the U.S.