Stephen’s Speech and Martyrdom
The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists at him in rage. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honour at God’s right hand. And he told them, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honour at God’s right hand!” Then they put their hands over their ears and began shouting. They rushed at him and dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. As they stoned him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” He fell to his knees, shouting, “Lord, don’t charge them with this sin!” And with that, he died.
Acts 7:54-60
- Why does Luke give so much detail on Stephen’s speech? (Betty)
- Why does Acts include so many boring speeches? (Ron)
- Does the length of time spent on it infer its importance?
- Why is Stephen’s speech and following martyrdom given such a prominent position?
I suspect Betty and Ron that you didn’t click the link I gave you in Bible Gem 1482 – Just Who is Guilty here? (Acts 7:51-60). Therefore you didn’t read Gems 1336 about the role of speeches in the book of Acts. At the risk of being pedantic I have linked Gem 1336 and 1482 to this Gems so you can easily read them.
- Does the length of time spent on a speech or a story infer its importance? Yes.
- Why is Stephen’s speech and following martyrdom given such a prominent position?
Luke used Stephen’s speech to create the foil to the attitude and track record of the Pharisees, Sadducees and the leaders of Israel. His speech retelling Jewish History is making a pointed statement about the role of the leaders in the events in Jerusalem. I have noted already that Stephen continues the attack of Peter on the religious leaders. Both Peter and Stephen accuse the Sanhedrin and their henchmen of killing the Messiah. That is a very bold statement. Peter, a Jew, did it and now Stephen, a Hellenist, is doing it. Stephen reinterprets the whole of Jewish history to show the leaders they are simply following Israel’s leaders down through the ages. They all killed the agents of change God sent to each generation. With this bold assertion they react in the way Stephen predicted in his speech. They kill him too. In a sense, proving his point. A rather costly way to make your point and you can only do it once.
This is a major turning point in the Book of Acts. It marks yet another murder of a leader sent by God. Notice how subtly Luke shows Stephen as being a devout, holy, responsive man to the Holy Spirit and to God. Of course this contrasts with the current leaders and incenses them even more. It also marks the change of the guard between Peter and the leaders to follow. That is why we have the little story of the introduction of Greek deacons. But not only that, it marks the point at which the movement of this Good News shifts from Jerusalem to the outermost part of the earth, in accord with Acts 1:8. This was always God’s purpose. If it doesn’t happen naturally or willingly, then something will happen to stir up the nest and thrust the witnesses outward. Take note of that feature in the chapters which follow. It is clear that this persecution is a bad thing and a good thing all at the same time. We will be told later why it happened, in retrospect.
So to summarise for you: Stephen’s speech is the longest in Acts because it is a sign and an indicator to much of what is going on in Acts below the surface. Take note, in order to connect the pieces. Sorry to highlight you Ron, but you are not the only one. Many people feel speeches are boring. Many feel the theological comment in Acts and Romans and other places are boring. But if we think that, then we miss the point of why they are included. We need to look at the whole picture and take time to decipher why these so called boring bits are placed where they are. Luke is operating on a number of levels all at the same time. Keep pondering these things as we move along and you will piece it all together. I am sure things will come clearer.
Tomorrow we will turn our attention to Saul (Paul). Iwill address the questions that Ihave gathered so far.
- Why does Luke introduce Paul as he does?
- If Paul was such a major figure of the New Testament why does he get such a bad introduction?
- Why does Luke split the coverage of (S)Paul into two parts?
- Is the persecution that came on the church linked to Paul?
- Who were the devout men who came to bury Stephen? Why is this part even included? What importance does it have? (Gillian)
- It seems as though Saul was one of the religious leaders in Jerusalam, Ian. Is that true? (Cynthia)
- Why are those places mentioned and why them only? (Cynthia)
- Why were the apostles immune to the persecution? (Gillian)
- Did Paul really go from house to house to find the Christians and put them in prison? Could that happen to us? (Gillian)
Another David, a colleague of mine from Sulawesi years, has clearly been pondering the Simon story and has come up witha list of questions related to that segment.
- What do we know about 1st century sourcerers?
- What kind of “magic” was Simon practicing? David
- Why didn’t Simon approach Philip and offer to pay money for the ability to heal, or cast out demons? David
- What was enticing about imparting the Holy Spirit to people that SImon wanted that power? David
- What was Simon planning to do with this power — Help out Peter and John? Garner esteem? Make money off of it? — or does it even matter? David
- What exactly is “wicked” about Simon’s request? Simon may have been thinking too much like a businessman, and been a bit pretentious for a new believer, but “wicked”? “evil”? really? David
- How did Peter see/know/understand what was in Simon’s heart? David
- What was the object of Simon’s jealousy? David
- What was the sin that Simon was in bondage to? David
- Why does Peter react the way he does to Simon?
- Given Simon’s past, and that he is a new believer, why didn’t Peter correct him more gently? David
- Does Simon’s response mean that he repented — as Peter had urged him to do? David
- Whatever happened to Simon? Why does Luke end the story where he does, without any “epilogue”? David
Just when you thought we had run out of all the questions there appear a host more. As my Greek professor used to say. “There is always more”. We will look at the questions related to Simon when the time is right. At the risk of extending the Gems on Acts 8 significantly, if any of you come up with more questions send them to me and I will include them. I am doing this with Chapter Eight, a chapter that most of us would pass over and wonder why these stories are in this position. Why did Luke include these stories when I am sure there must be so many other stories he could have included. As Kevin asked, “Why was Philip the only one included? Weren’t there more miracle stories connected to the other apostles and disciples as well?” Now that is a good question. Why does Luke include the Philip story and the Simon story when his research must have turned up many more accounts he could have included? Why these ones?
If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.
Winston Churchill
Today’s public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books, and there is some evidence that they can’t read them either.
Gore Vidal
To assess the quality of thoughts of people, don’t listen to their words, but watch their actions.
No audience ever complained about a presentation or speech being too short. In speeches, less really is more.
Anon
Never give up. Never give up. Never ever ever give up! His shortest and most powerful speech
Winston Churchill