Atos 7
Samuel Johnson · Citado em PreceptAustin
Atos 7
Johnson points out that this question was a "trap" - The stock question in logic books, if you want to illustrate a question that will incriminate the person that you want to defeat in an argument, the stock question is have you stopped beating your wife? And, of course, if you answer that, yes, you’ve stopped, you have in a sense admitted that you have been beating your wife. If you say, no, well, you’re still beating your wife. So if you in an argument can ask a question that has a buried assumption and get your opponent to answer it, that’s the way to win arguments. You may not necessarily be right; but you will win the argument! Well, Stephen doesn’t fall for that. He gives a rather lengthy answer to the question, “Are these things so?” (Acts 7) Below are these things, the accusations leveled against Stephen. The fifth one could be viewed as related to accusations #3 and #4. Blasphemous words against Moses (Acts 6:11+) Blasphemous words against God (Acts 6:11+) Speaks against the holy place (Acts 6:13+) Speaks against the Law (Acts 6:13+) Says that Jesus would destroy the Temple and alter the customs which Moses handed down (Acts 6:14+) Some commentators lump these 5 items together into two basic accusations of against the Law and against the Temple (e.g., see Larkin). Derek Thomas adds "two quite distinct charges were brought against Stephen. One was that he was subverting Moses and the law (Acts 6:11,13)....The other charge...was that he had shown disrespect to the sanctity of the temple—where God resided (Acts 6:11, 13)." (Reformed Expository Commentary - Acts) Acts 7 is the longest speech/sermon in the book of Acts. Here is a outline with relationship to the charges against Stephen... The Patriarchs (Acts 7:2-16) - Refutes the Charge of blaspheming God (Acts 6:11+) Moses and the Law (Acts 7:17-43) - Response to the Charge of blaspheming Moses (Acts 6:11+) and Speaking against the Law (Acts 6:13+) The Tabernacle and Temple (Acts 7:44-50) - Response to speaking against the Temple (Acts 6:13+) The Indictment the Jews (Acts 7:51-53) - Notice how God turns the tables, so that Stephen the defendant becomes Stephen the prosecutor and the prosecuting Jews and Sanhedrin become the defendants. The irony is that the original defendant is not guilty while the original prosecutors are guilty. The tragedy is that the not-guilty one is punished and the guilty one's are "set free." Of course, their unfair verdict had an effect for only for a moment in time, whereas the righteous rewards for Stephen and the righteous retribution for his Jewish murderers both endure throughout eternity, the former in eternal bliss, the latter in eternal torment! Many have criticized Stephen's speech for number of reasons. For example, John Stott notes that "George Bernard Shaw in his preface to Androcles and the Lion. Calling Stephen ‘a quite intolerable young speaker’ and ‘a tactless and conceited bore’, he describes him as having ‘delivered an oration to the council, in which he … inflicted on them a tedious sketch of the history of Israel, with which they were presumably as well acquainted as he’" From the note below it is highly unlikely Shaw was a genuine believer in Jesus Christ which would explain why an otherwise intelligent man would make such an inane statement against words inspired by the Holy Spirit! Note on Shaw's beliefs - In his will, Shaw stated that his "religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative revolution".[303] He requested that no one should imply that he accepted the beliefs of any specific religious organisation, and that no memorial to him should "take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice".[303] Martyn Lloyd-Jones must have thought Acts 7 be of great significance as he preached 38 sermons on this single chapter! Henry Alford - In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind, (1) that the general character of it is apologetic, referring to the charge made against him: but (2) that in this apology, forgetting himself in the vast subject which he is vindicating, he every where mixes in the polemic and didactic element. David Thompson writes - The purpose of Stephen selecting the data is to show these religious leaders two key truths: (1) The presence of God has never been restricted to one place like the Temple; (2) Religious leaders have a history of rejecting God’s truth and those who communicate it. These religious Jews put all of their salvific emphasis on the Temple and the Torah. They told people that to have any relationship with God they must go into the Temple because the presence of God was in the Temple. They also taught that the people needed to keep the O.T. Law. Stephen has been toppling their theology with the grace message. He has been exalting the name of Jesus Christ above the land, the Law and the Temple...Now why is it brought up that God appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia? (Acts 7:2) Because Stephen is proving that the God of Israel is not a God limited to their specific geographical spot in the Temple of Jerusalem, but He is a God of the whole world. (Sermon) Derek Thomas - The sermon is longer than any other recorded in Acts, but the problem is not so much its length as its logic. Indeed, even Calvin appears to balk at it: “Stephen’s answer may at first seem silly. He began at the beginning, then went on and on making almost no mention of the matter in hand; there can be no greater fault than to say a lot but wander from the subject.” And
Atos 7
Johnson has an interesting observation on the importance of Stephen and this sermon - "Theologically, (Stephen) is very important because he was the first great Christian apologist, the most enlightened teacher of his time perhaps, because it appears that in his understanding of the divine revelation, he had outstripped the pillars of the Church, James and Peter and John. Paul, in one of his messages, latter on, comments upon the fact that he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, as if Gamaliel was his master in spiritual things. I really think that it was Stephen who was Paul’s master in spiritual things. Of course, he was not a willing person at the feet of Stephen at those debates in the Hellenistic synagogue (cf "they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking." Acts 6:10+)....It was there that he (Paul) learned his message....Stephen illustrates the fact that many gifted young men are often cut-off, before they reach the prime of their contribution to our life (ED: OR AT LEAST WHAT WE PERCEIVE THEIR "PRIME" FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE.). Stephen is one of those but he’s remembered; he’s a man of great promise, cut-off before he reached the fullness of what apparently he could have. But often in God’s ways, these things do happen. We cannot understand them. They are puzzles to us. But, nevertheless, they are part of the providence of God.... I can imagine Paul going in, and I can imagine also that Paul, too, was defeated by this man, Stephen... The charge (AGAINST STEPHEN) is very simple. You have blasphemed Moses and you have blasphemed God. He had, evidently, told them that the temple was no longer the place where God is worshipped. God is worshipped in spirit and in truth, and while the temple may have been the proper place for a time, now that Christ has come, we worship God not through the Levitical ceremonies of the Mosaic system; but we worship him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24)." (Acts 7) Jonathan Teram - We must note a few things about his defense right away. First, as we know, Stephen goes through a very long review about Israel’s history. Second, it seems like Stephen hardly defends himself. For this reason, some skeptics have said that this defense is not genuine but rather is just Luke inserting another argument for Christianity. What those skeptics fail to note is that though Stephen does not defend himself per say, he does answer his accusations and prove that they are false. At that brings us to the third thing about Stephen’s defense---why does Stephen give this long speech about Israel’s history to learned rabbis who already knew Israel’s history? The answer is that Stephen emphasizes two aspects of Israel’s history that were relevant to the problem at hand. 1) The Israelite people had “a habit” of rejecting God’s chosen leaders. 2) The temple or any other “place” could not contain God’s glory. When we look at Stephen’s defense with those two points in mind, we realize that this is an extraordinarily powerful sermon! Chris Vogel: The trouble was the people loved the symbol of God’s affection for them so much that they missed the substance of his love for them. The hung on the illustration and missed out on the reality. Rather than allowing the Law to point them to their need of a Savior, Jesus Christ, they used the law unlawfully to encourage their own law keeping as good enough to please God. Rather than the temple sacrifices pointing them to Christ’s death, the presence of God in the temple reminding them of God’s presence on the basis of Jesus our High Priest, they saw the temple as a badge of honor, of God’s special love for them. Keeping the Law and temple, but missing Christ is a tragedy. . .God is not imprisoned in the walls of his temple, he is not a caged animal for the enjoyment of his people. He is boundless in calling whomever he will. In v2 – his call goes out to one who lived in Mesopotamia. You don’t get much more outside the box than that. The way Stephen describes God’s work shows his grace. God does not just call out to Abraham from the comfort and safety of Mt. Zion, “Abram, come over here, I want you!” Rather God appears, in all his glory, in the pagan land of Mesopotamia. The idea of God doing this would be repulsive to the Jews. Remember, in Genesis this is the land of rebellion against God as the tower of Babel is built. Throughout the Old Testament this land is the capital of idolatry. But God goes into that unlikely place to call a people Joseph Addison Alexander introduces Acts 7 - His defence is drawn entirely from the Old Testament history, and is designed to show, that all God’s dealings with the Chosen People pointed to those very changes which Stephen was accused of having threatened. This he proves by showing, that the outward organization and condition of (Israel) had undergone repeated change, under Abraham (Acts 7:2–8), Joseph (Acts 7:9–16), Moses (Acts 7:17–44), David (Acts 7:45–46); that the actual state of things had no existence before Solomon (Acts 7:47); that even this was intended from the beginning to be temporary (Acts 7:48–50); and lastly, that the Israelites of every age had been unfaithful to their trust (Acts 7:9, 25, 27, 35, 39–43, 51–53.) The remainder of the chapter describes the effect of this discourse upon the council (Acts 7:54), Stephen’s heavenly vision (Acts 7:55, 56), and his death by stoning (Acts 7:57–60). (Acts 7 Commentary) Peloubet (reference) feels Stephen's sermon/speech has three major aims... (1) It was an answer to the accusations brought against him, interwoven with the whole history, implicitly rather than directly repudiating the charge of blasphemy against God, and contempt for the law. This was a defence of the Christian cause even more than of himself. His use of the Bible was itself a refutation. He knows the Scriptures; he reverently repeats their history. He shows that he accepts Moses as a prophet, and that even his preaching of Jesus as the Messiah was simply the proclamation that Moses' prophecy had been fulfilled, and Moses himself bade them, "Hear ye him." "One of the marked characteristics of the address," says McGiffert, "is the emphasis which is put upon the sacredness both of the Promised Land and of the Mosaic law." It was like taking the oath of allegiance to his religion and his country. (2) In like manner interwoven with the history was an argument in proof of the Messiahship of Jesus, the prophet whom Moses foretold and in whom the promise to Abraham was fulfilled, as against "those who appealed to the authority of Moses, and saw in Jesus a twofold cause of offence: (1) that he was rejected by his people and crucified; (2) that he had treated with impiety that which they held most sacred, the law and the temple," —points which "must have been discussed in every synagogue, and which the infant church must have been obliged to face from the first, especially as it took its stand upon the proof that Jesus was the Christ."' He showed that Jesus was the goal of Hebrew history, the fulfilment and culmination of all the past which the Sanhedrim revered. (3) The history as related by Stephen was a mirror in which the Sanhedrim could see their own conduct in their treatment of Jesus, paralleled by the conduct of their ancestors in opposing and seeking to destroy those whom God had sent to save them; that not himself, but they, are the criminals ; that they are doing to Jesus just what their fathers did to Moses and the prophets, whom they now revere. The people rejected Moses, but he became their deliverer, and brought them to the Promised Land. The rulers were now rejecting Jesus ; they had betrayed and murdered him, but still God would make him their deliverer, and he would bring the Messianic kingdom they hoped for. So God delivered Joseph, as he has now delivered Christ. Even in the earliest times there were suggestions of a wider worship than tabernacle or temple, and that vision was now being realized. Acts 7:2 And he said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, (NASB: Lockman) KJV Acts 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, Hear me, brethren and fathers Acts 22:1; 23:7 The God of glory Ps 24:7,10; 29:3; Isa 6:3; Mt 6:13; Luke 2:14; John 1:14; 12:41; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:3; Rev 4:11; 5:12,13 appeared Ge 12:1; Neh 9:7; Isa 51:2 Harran Ge 11:31; 12:5; 29:4 Acts 7 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries STEPHEN'S SCRIPTURE SATURATED APOLOGETIC In this first section Acts 7:2-16 Stephen description of God is completely orthodox and serves to refute the accusation that he had spoken blasphemous words against God (Acts 6:11+). He was doing so not so much to acquit himself but to defend the Gospel. As he moves through the OT history, he cleverly shows how Jews had treated and repeatedly rejected their leaders (Abraham, Joseph, Moses) and how they treated and rejected their Messiah. Notice that Acts 7:2-50 serves as an illustration of his indictment to the Sanhedrin that "you are doing just as your fathers did." Paul Apple notes that God's pattern shown in this section is "God Initiates by Grace / Man Responds by Faith....God of Glory Graciously Appears – Revelation is the key – God appears to man – Amazing; Immanuel – God actually comes and dwells with man -- Amazing. “ophthalmology” – from Greek word for “appeared.” 1. Eternal Perspective of God of Glory – sees the end from the beginning - Stephen condemning the Jewish leaders for their limited perspective 2. Universal Scope of God’s Program for Man – not just about the nation Israel Stephen condemning the Jewish leaders for their nationalistic prejudice and arrogance; God not limited by geography to one special holy land; God was with Abraham wherever he went – not tied to the land or the temple (Acts Commentary) At the time Abraham and his family were worshipping other gods (Joshua 24:2); call in Haran was a confirmation of earlier call when he was in Ur (Gen. 12:1) Abraham was a very unlikely choice – just as David was not the obvious choice for Samuel when he came looking for the man God wanted anointed as king; family of idolaters living in a pagan land (The Spread of the Gospel) Warren