Bible Commentaries
Acts 6

Verses 1-3

XI

THE OFFICE OF DEACON, THE PHARISAIC PERSECUTION, STEPHEN AND SAUL TO THE FRONT, A NEW ISSUE, AND THE REJECTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE ANOINTED CHURCH BY JERUSALEM

Acts 6:1-8:3.

So far in the book of Acts we have considered two leading thoughts: (1) the coming of the Holy Spirit to occupy and to accredit the church; (2) the Sadducean persecution, waged on account of the issue made by the church and the Holy Spirit that Christ was risen from the dead. The topics of discussion in this chapter are very important. We have already noted that the protracting of the great revival commenced at Pentecost (which really lasted three and a half years), detained, in the Holy City, multitudes of the Jews of the dispersion for so long a time that great necessity arose, which was met by a burst of philanthropy never surpassed in the world’s history.

Our first topic is the creation of the office of deacon. The church was composed of Hebrews and Hellenists, or Grecians. The Hebrews were Palestinian Jews, speaking the mixed Hebrew tongue, called Aramaic, and were generally more rigid than the Hellenists in devotion to all the rites and traditions of the past.

The problem of fairly distributing the benevolent fund of the church to all the needy ones now confronted the church. There came up a complaint on the part of the Grecians, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. That was the problem. It would not do to have the church divided on a matter of that kind, and there had to be a solution of that problem. The solution was that the apostles ordered the church as a whole to select a body of men who should attend to this financial, or secular matter; and that they would then be ordained to the work by prayer and the laying on of hands. The church thereupon elected seven men, calling them from among the Grecians, the parties from whom the complaint came, and these seven men took charge of this matter and relieved the apostles from having to consider the temporalities when all their energies should be devoted to preaching the Word. That was the solution of the problem.

Let us connect and explain the following: Acts 2:45, where they had everything common, and out of that common fund provided for all the necessitous cases of the entire congregation; Acts 4:35, where Barnabas and others sold their possessions and put the proceeds of the sale into this common fund; Acts 6:1, where complaint arose about the fairness in the distribution of this fund; Acts 11:29 and Acts 12:25, where a contribution was made for the purpose of aiding the poor saints in Jerusalem; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, where Paul says, "As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store . . . that no collections be made when I come," this fund to be sent to Judea to help the poor saints; 2 Corinthians 8-9, which is devoted to the same subject; and 1 Timothy 5:3-11, where Paul instructs Timothy, who was then at Ephesus, as to what kind of widows to receive on this beneficiary list.

My object in grouping these scriptures is to show more clearly than heretofore in what respect they had "all things common" – that it was with regard to the necessity. Those who had abundance either gave money, or sold their property and got money, and put it into a common fund, and that fund had to be distributed among all of the necessitous cases, according as each had need.

When you study this account all the way through the New Testament, you will see that it did not approximate in meaning what the Socialists now claim for it; that it did not mean that all of the property was to be common, but that all should participate according to the ability, to create a fund common to the necessity.

We have here the lesson in church polity, that though the apostles themselves were present, the election of officers must be by the church, being congregational in form and polity, and every member of the church, male and female, being entitled to an equal vote in matters that related to the congregation. We have already found the same thing in the election of the successor to Judas. Here again it is made perfectly plain that even the twelve men, inspired of God, did not assume to elect officers of the church. They directed the church to do the electing, and they participated in the ordination. This was the institution of the deacon’s office referred to in Philippians 1:1, where Paul writes to the bishops and deacons, and whose qualifications are set forth in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

The philosophic ground on which this institution rests is the division of labor. An Old Testament parallel is Jethro’s suggestion to Moses to appoint judges to judge the small matters, and let him (Moses) judge only of matters God-ward. In Christ’s time, Judas exercised the deacon’s office. That college of apostles was a church in embryo, and Judas, one of the twelve, carried the bag, with the result that he extracted from it its contents. "He was a thief," John says. We may well ask another question: Is there a failure when the preacher exercises the deacon function, and was that the reason for now putting this temporal matter into the bands of laymen?

A preacher can dip a brush In lampblack and swab out all the white in his reputation, if he goes wrong on the use of church funds.

I knew a preacher who wanted all the time to be deacon as well as pastor; he kept all the funds, and there was a great row at the final examination of his financial accounts.

The Methodists and the Romanists both hold that a deacon is an order of the clergy. It cannot be that it was intended to institute a new order in the ministry, for the reason assigned: "We cannot leave the word of God and serve tables; therefore, look ye out brethren from among you, suitable men, to attend to this, and we will give ourselves to the ministry of the word and to prayer." That makes it perfectly plain that they were not intending to create a new order of preachers, but secular officers to attend to the temporalities of the church.

I heard a sermon by a great Mississippi Baptist preacher, S. S. Lattimore, father of J. C. Lattimore, of Waco, and 0. S. Lattimore, of Fort Worth. The subject was, "We Cannot Leave the Word of God to Serve Tables," and the position he took was that the deacon is elected to serve tables: (1) The tables of the poor. (2) The table of the Lord’s Supper. (3) The table of the pastor. I thought it a very ingenious division of the table question.

If, then, it was not intended to create a new order in the ministry, what about the preaching of two of these deacons – Stephen and Philip? The explanation is that deacons sometimes become preachers. Two of these seven did. We see such things happen now, but they were not elected to the office of preacher in this case (Acts 6:1-6).

The present classifications in the ministry are: (1) pastors, meaning shepherds; bishops, meaning overseers of the work, which refers to the same office; pastors or bishops are those that have charge of the church; (2) evangelists, or kingdom preachers; (3) missionaries. A missionary may not necessarily be an evangelist. Those can hardly be called different orders in the ministry – that is, one is not higher than the other; it is not a graded thing, but it is a classification.

Some people are concerned to know whether a deacon should be a married man and a father. I will say that is better, but I would not consider it absolutely necessary. We certainly cannot infer it from the passage that is usually quoted: "Likewise their wives . . . grave." The word does not mean "wives," i.e., the wives of deacons, but it means "deaconesses." It is better that these men be men of rich religious character and experience, and possessing the confidence of the denomination, as they are going to handle public funds.

The result of the solution of this problem which confronted the church is found in Acts 6:7: "The word of God increased, and multitudes were converted." There are certain essential elements of the rite or ceremony of ordination indicated here: (1) election by the church; (2) prayer; (3) laying on of hands. Those three things belong to the rite, or the ceremony, or ordination.

These remarks have been preliminary. We now advance in the discussion. A new man came to the front at this time, and his character and work rendered him prominent, not only then, but in all ages since. That man was Stephen, and the character of his work was as follows. The record states (1) that he was full of the Holy Spirit; (2) that he was full of faith; (3) that he wrought miracles and wonders. When it says that he was full of faith, it means that he had a clearer and stronger faith than any other man then living on the earth. No one of the apostles had such clear recognition of the meaning of the kingdom of God and of the church and of the work of the church as this man Stephen. He is the colossal figure in the history of the early church. He presented a new matter to the people which it took the apostles a long time to see.

In Acts 6:9 we find a synagogue and some other terms of the verse that need explanation. This was a Jewish synagogue, not for resident Jews, but for Jews of the dispersion, who stayed for a long time in Jerusalem, and as they did not understand the Hebrew language, the ordinary Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem did not benefit them much, so it is called (1) the synagogue of the "Libertines" (Freedmen); (2) "Cyreneans and Alexandrians" – Jews from northern Africa, where they had been settled by one of the Ptolemies; (3) "Cilicia and Asia," the home of Saul; a great many Cilician Jews were in that synagogue. It is implied in their making an issue with Stephen that Stephen himself, being a Grecian, being one of the dispersed Jews, and better able to speak to that class than to the Hebrews, was pushing, particularly among these dispersed Jews, the grand thoughts concerning the kingdom of God that he bore in his own mind. He was very aggressive; he carried the war into the enemy’s territory. Saul of Tarsus was probably the rabbi of this synagogue. He was educated first at home, then he was graduated in their theological school, of which Gamaliel was president, and became a rabbi, and was of this particular synagogue.

The method of resistance to the gospel now adopted by this synagogue, which was entirely new, was to debate the question. There had been no debate heretofore. The Sadducees did not try to debate with them. This young man, Saul, was a trained thinker, speaker and logician, and he did not propose to let this thing go without "tackling" it in debate. So there was a challenge for debate. Stephen was making certain points, and he was making them among these Grecian people. Still young and ambitious, he had his fire; he believed confidently in his ability to beat any man in -the world. They put it up to him to debate the question. And this is the new method of resistance. The two opposing were the rabbi of this synagogue, and Stephen, who was pushing war over into that synagogue. I would like to have heard the discussion. I am sure it was a fight of the giants.

The issue now is not the resurrection of the dead, but on the whole of the old dispensation having served its purpose; it is vanishing and a new dispensation takes its place. Many of the things in the old dispensation were nailed to the cross of Christ. Their great Temple is now an empty house; its veil is rent in twain from top to bottom; a new temple has been anointed, according to the prophet Daniel, in Daniel 9 – the anointing of the most holy place – the Holy Spirit coming down and filling the house that Jesus built, leaving the other house vacant. Everything in connection with that system that is local and transitory has vanished away. In other words, Stephen was making right there in that debate just exactly the argument that is made in the letter to the Hebrews that in the new dispensation is a greater than Moses, a greater than the angels, a greater than Joshua, a greater than Aaron. That a greater sacrifice than the bullocks, sheep, and goats, offered on Jewish altars, had been offered. There is then the new temple, the new Sabbath also, everything new now; just what the letter to the Hebrews discusses. This is the issue that Stephen made that this Jesus is the one pointed out by Moses and by the prophets as the true Messiah. That is the forward step taken by Stephen.

The result of the debate is given in Acts 6:10: "And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spake." They could not resist the power of his eloquence, and Saul went down in the fight. A deaf man was once asked why he attended a big debate, since he could not hear. He said he could always tell which side got whipped. "Why?" he was asked. "Because the one that gets whipped gets mad." So Saul, failing in this new method of resistance by discussion, revived an old one, an account of which we find in Acts 6:11-14. They took up that old "rusty sword of persecution" that the Sadducees had tried. They took this thing into the courts, and brought the power of the council to bear on it, and decided this matter dogmatically.

When they arrested Stephen and tried him before the Sanhedrin there were three charges, and that shows what he had been preaching:

(1) Their witnesses testified that this man Stephen had spoken blasphemous words about their Temple. I have no doubt that Stephen said it was an empty house that had served its day – that it was only waiting a short time until it would be blotted out from the earth, and one stone would not be left upon another – that it was never to be erected again, never to have the altar of sacrifices again. That is the first charge, and we see how plausible they made it.

(2) That he spoke against the law. I have no doubt that they made plausible proof on that, and yet it was false. He did not speak against the law, but just as Christ said: "I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil it" – that the law in all of its types and shadows and ritual had been completed, filled full, and there was no more use for it; that there was a new law, calling for a different Sacrifice, calling for a different Priest.

(3) That he preached that so far as the customs taught by Moses were typical and ritualistic, and pertaining to a past dispensation, they would be changed. I have no’ doubt that he stood there and preached that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was broken down and ground to powder. And he had more faith in that than any other man of his time. His appearance and bearing before the Sanhedrin were marvelous. He did not look like a guilty man; he did not look scared. When they looked steadfastly at him they saw a face illumined – a face like the face of an angel. The Lord God was the light of his countenance. The light and glory of God was in his eye. He stood there as a king among men. He did not come in like a whipped cur, begging pardon for existence or appealing for pity.

Let us analyze his defense, and especially make clear his charge against them. The defense corresponds to the charge in its three parts – Acts 6:13-14. It shows that the Jews misunderstood their own scriptures, which distinctly showed the transitory nature of the old dispensation. He submits his proof: (a) That Moses foretold the coming of a Prophet like unto himself, whose teaching should be final, (b) The prophets foretold the same thing, (c) The tabernacle of Moses was temporary, and succeeded by the Temple, (d) That God had left the old Temple, since he dwelleth in a temple not made with hands. Stephen was preaching a temple not made with hands – the church – every stone in this new temple being a living stone, or a converted man or woman, (e) That all through the probations of their history they had rejected the definitely appointed leaders. They had rejected Moses; they had rejected God; they had rejected the prophets; they had rejected the Lord himself, when he came in fulfilment of the prophecy of Moses; and now, to cap the climax, they were rejecting the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent from heaven; they were resisting the anointed church which that Spirit accredited. The effect of the defense and the charge on that Sanhedrin was terrific: "They gnashed on him with their teeth." They were "cut to the heart." The word of God was a sword in the hands of Stephen. It was living and powerful, and dividing the joints, reaching the marrow and laying bare the soul itself in its nakedness. His face was shining. One of the great painters, Rembrandt, obtained his special style by putting a halo around the face. The photographers adopt that style now, in which the face is flooded with light, and this is exhibited in the picture. We read that the face of Stephen was illumined, and looking up, far above earthly courts, he sees the heavens opened, and the heavenly court. He sees the supreme court of the universe, the glory of God, and Jesus, who is represented as seated on the right hand of God. He has leaped up to his feet. Stephen said, "I see Jesus, standing at the right hand of the majesty on high."

That vision was according to a prophecy of our Lord. When Christ had been put on oath, about three and a half years before this time, by this same Sanhedrin, having the same officers, he said (testifying under oath that he was the Messiah), "Hereafter ye shall see me at the right hand of God." They counted that blasphemy when Christ said it. Now Stephen, remembering the words of the Lord says, "I see him. He said he would appear at the right hand of God. I see him there." His appearance was his demonstration that he was the Messiah. According to what promise of the Lord? Jesus said, "Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself." When the time of a Christian’s death approaches, there is a coming of the Lord. Jesus meets him at the depot of death, and receives him into the everlasting tabernacles. Stephen, the brittle thread of his life about to be snapped in twain, and his soul to be evicted by violence from his crumbling body, says, "I see him; he is standing; he said he would come, and he has come." What was the reason of the effect on that council? It is that this vision which this man evidently saw was a plea established upon what Christ had said, and, therefore, they were affected instead of this man being affected, and though affected, yet not in love with the truth brought to light. They hated it. The greater its light the more they squirmed; the greater the light, the more they writhed in it. Just like a worm exposed to the light, they could not stand the effect of the light. So they brought in a verdict on the charge of blasphemy, and he was executed as indicated by the penalty, which was stoning. Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin and voted in rendering this verdict, the proof of which is found in Acts 8:1; Acts 26:10: "Saul was consenting unto his death . . . when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them." But Stephen made a twofold prayer, which sustains a relation to the words and deeds of our Lord. His first prayer was, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," looking into the face of Jesus, just as we look into any man’s face. Jesus was there, and as the tenement of clay was about to crumble, and the soul was about to be evicted, Stephen said, "Lord, receive my spirit." What word of Christ does he recollect? "It is finished. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." The other part of his prayer was, "Lord Jesus, lay not this sin to their charge," praying for his murderers.. Jesus made intercession for the transgressors: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." So Stephen was talking to the Lord, that he lay not this sin to their charge. Augustine said of this prayer in one of his great homilies:

Si Stephanus non sic orasset, Eccleaia Paulum non haberet.

If Stephen had not so prayed, The Church had not had Paul.

I sometimes think of that prayer and that fiery disputant who was mad because he had been defeated in the debate, and who is now a persecutor, a witness and judge, and of Stephen, looking in the face of the Saviour, and saying, "Lord, lay not this sin to Saul’s charge," and then I track that prayer until I see it answered.

There is special significance in the fact that the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of Saul. He was the chief persecutor, and as the law required that the witnesses should lay aside their outer cloaks, and cast the first stone, so when they disrobed themselves of their outer cloak in order to stone Stephen, they brought their clothes and put them at the feet of this young man named Saul, showing that everything was being done under his direction and leadership.

The persecution now commenced is unlike the Sadducean persecution. It is the most sweeping transaction that the Jews ever conducted in their history. It includes that most abominable of all exercises inaugurated – inquisitorial visitation into the private home, and the dragging of men and women violently before the courts, and then when they were put to death, Saul gave his vote against them. It reached every man, every woman, and every child in the church, except the apostles, and expatriated those whom it did not select. The fire was so hot that they fled in every direction.

A distinct prophetic period here ends according to Daniel, who said that when the Messiah comes, he will confirm the covenant with many for one week; that in the middle of the week he should be cut off – that is, he would confirm it for one week of three-and-a-half years during his public ministry, and then he would confirm it three-and-a-half years after his death. This persecution of Saul is the end of the second three and-a-half years. Hereafter the salvation of the Jews is an exception; hence there will be no ingathering of the Jews until they shall say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." It means that the God of salvation is now shut out from their faces. But this persecution affects the church in a broader understanding of its commission. Its members see now, as I will show in a subsequent discussion, that Samaria must have the Word of God; that the Gentiles must also have it, as was seen in the forward step of this fiery Stephen, such as they had never had before, and that no apostle had up to that time. This gives Stephen a prominent place in the transition. He is a keystone figure in the transaction. He is the colossal leader that gets the church out of its rut of preaching to Jews only, and puts the wheels of the carriage of salvation on a graded road and track that will lead to every nation, tribe, tongue, and kindred in the world. Likewise Saul sustained a vital relation to this great transition. He was the man who by that debate and that persecution, just as effectually, though unconsciously, helped to spread the gospel to the whole world, as he did later when he preached it himself. Thus again the wrath of man was made to praise God.

But what of the execution of Stephen on the verdict of a Jewish court, on a Jewish charge, with a Jewish penalty, as compared with what the same Sanhedrin had said three years before to Pilate (John 18:31) of the unlawfulness of their putting a man to death? Pilate said, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law," and they said, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." Here they were putting a man to death, and they were trying him according to their law, and Paul says, "We tried and put to death." Here is the explanation: This was the year A.D. 37, in which Tiberius, the Emperor, died, and the new emperor had not come in, and as procurators were appointees of emperors, there were no procurators. At this juncture there was no procurator in Palestine, no Pontius Pilate, and, therefore, they took matters into their own hands at the risk of a subsequent explanation of it when the emperor should come to it. Just here the Pharisee persecution ended by the conversion of Saul, and then the church had rest (Acts 9:31).

Acts 7:2-3; Acts 7:22; Acts 7:25; Acts 7:53 shed much light on the Old Testament. Acts 7:2-3 says, "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee." The Revised Version of Genesis indicates that God’s call to Abraham took place after he got into the promised land. Stephen here says that that call came before he got to Haran. The King James Version rightly translates Genesis 12:1 and the Revised Version "slips up" on it. The Authorized Version says, "God had said to Abraham." Acts 7:22 says, "And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works." That throws light on the education of Moses, and also on the public official deeds of Moses. Acts 7:25 says, "And he [Moses] supposed that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance." That throws light on the interference of Moses in Egypt, and shows that God had told him that he was to deliver Israel. He had a revelation which we do not learn from Exodus. He supposed his people understood that they were to be delivered by him. Acts 7:53 says, "Ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not." That is light on the Sinaitic covenant – that it came through the ministry of angels, later reaffirmed in the New Testament, accepted by Jews, and especially claimed by Josephus. Just here is needed an explanation of Acts 7:16, which says, "And they were laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for the price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem." The only explanation of that is that there is an error in the text of the copyist. Abraham did not buy that land. If we go back far enough we will see that it was Jacob’s and not Abraham’s; and that Jacob claimed that he got it by bow and spear. His sons, Levi and Simeon, got it by as rascally a trick as was ever perpetrated.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the leading topics so far discussed in Acts?

2. What are the themes of this chapter?

3. What is the distinction between Grecians and Hebrews in Acts 6:1?

4. What problem now confronted the church, and what its solution?

5. Connect and explain the following scriptures: Acts 2:45; Acts 4:35; Acts 6:1; Acts 11:29; Acts 12:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-14; 1Cor. 8-9; and 1 Timothy 5:3-11.

6. What lesson of church polity here taught?

7. Was this the institution of the deacon’s office referred to in Philippians 1:1, and whose qualifications are set forth in 1 Timothy 3:8-13? What the proof?

8. On what philosophic ground does this institution rest, what Old Testament parallel, who in Christ’s lifetime exercised the deacon’s office, and what the result?

9. Was the deaconship, now established, an order in the ministry as taught by some denominations? If not, how explain the preaching of Stephen and Philip, who were deacons?

10. What are the present classifications in the ministry? Give examples.

11. Must a deacon be a married man and a father?

12. What was the result of the solution of this problem, which confronted the church?

13. What are the essential elements of the rite of ordination?

14. What new man now comes to the front, and what character of his work rendered him prominent, not only then, but in all ages since?

15. Explain the synagogue of Acts 6:9 and the other terms of the verse, and what is implied in their making an issue with Stephen?

16. Who was probably the rabbi of this synagogue?

17. What entirely new method of resistance to the gospel now adopted by this synagogue, and who were the opposing leaders?

18. What is the issue this time as contrasted with the Sadducean issue, and what great forward step had been taken by Stephen which created this issue?

19. What is the result of the debate?

20. Failing in this new method of resistance by discussion, what old one did they revive?

21. What charges did they bring against Stephen, and what the plausibleness of each?

22. What his appearance and bearing before the Sanhedrin?

23. Analyze his defense; especially make clear his charge against them.

24. What is the effect of the defense and the charge, on the council?

25. What is the vision of Stephen, what its relation to a prophecy of our Lord, also to a promise of our Lord, and what the reason of its effect on the council?

26. Did they render a verdict, and on what charge was he executed, as indicated by the penalty?

27. Was Saul a member of the Sanhedrin, did he vote in casting this verdict, and what the proof?

28. What was Stephen’s twofold prayer, and what its relation to the words and deeds of our Lord?

29. What said Augustine of this prayer in one of his great homilies?

30. What is the significance of the witnesses laying their clothes at the feet of Saul?

31. What is the sweeping persecution that followed, what its signification, what its character, what its extent, and what its result?

32. What distinct prophetic period ends here, and what its meaning to the Jewish nation?

33. How did this persecution affect the church with reference to the commission?

34. What may be said of Stephen’s relation to this great transition?

35. What was Paul’s relation to it?

36. Compare the execution of Stephen on the verdict of a Jewish court, on a Jewish charge, with a Jewish penalty, with what the same Sanhedrin had said three years before to Pilate, and explain.

37. How did the Pharisee persecution end?

38. What light on the Old Testament from Acts 7:2-3?

39. What light is also from Acts 7:22?

40. What is from Acts 7:25?

41. What is from Acts 7:53?

42. Harmonize Acts 7:14 with Genesis 46:26 f; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22.

43. Explain Acts 7:16.

44. Explain the word "church" in Acts 7:38.