Prayer, Preaching, and the Unhinderable Progress of the WordActs 6:1-1510/20/13

Have you ever missed an appointment or been late for a meeting because you were caught up reading your Bible? Or praying? Or telling your neighbor about Jesus in the driveway? I can’t remember any of those things happening in my life, so if you’re thinking, “No, I’ve never had that experience,” don’t worry; neither have I.

But what does that say about how we value or prioritize praying, reading God’s Word, and telling people about Jesus?

In our passage this morning, we find the apostles neglecting something very important because of their dedication to preachingand praying, and we get to see how they didn’t alter their priorities, but they also provided a solution for the neglect. But, that’s not actually what the passage is about. The passage is really about how the Word of God cannot be hindered.

Let’s take a look. Open your Bibles to Acts 6. We have seen how opposition to the preaching of the apostles has escalated. In Acts 4, Peter and John were arrested and charged not to speak in the name of Jesus either in public or in private, but they were released without any punishment and they continued preaching God’s Word in the Temple with boldness. In Acts 5, all of the apostles were arrested and flogged by the Jewish authorities, butthey were released and then we read these unbelievable words in Acts 5:42: And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. Arrest ‘em; threaten ‘em; flog ‘em; but you can’t stop ‘em!

In Acts 6, we meet Stephen who catches the attention of the Jewish authorities by his preaching and working miracles. And, not meaning to spoil the story, after preaching the longest sermon recorded in the book of Acts (in chapter 7), Stephen will

1

be violently executed. Even still, this doesn’t stop or even slowdown the progress of the Word!

So, let’s take a look at verse 1; Acts 6:1: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. Luke, the writer of Acts, introduces a problem that’s connected to the increase of the number of disciples. Interestingly, this is the first time inthe Book of Acts that the Christians are called “disciples.” Disciples are learners, followers of the Teacher, Jesus. Here, Jesus’s class size is getting very large indeed, so large that some kids are getting left out!

The last time the text gave us a specific number of Christians inJerusalem was in Acts 4:4, where it was said to be approximately 5,000, counting only the men. Since then, we have had one more notice about more people becoming Christians in Acts 5:14: And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. Now, think about the organizational nightmarethis could have been. As far as we’re told in the Book of Acts, the twelve apostles remain the only leaders of the church; they were apparently doing most, if not all, of the teaching of all ofthese people, and they were overseeing the collection and distribution of funds and resources.1 Twelve men responsible for thousands! Some commentators reasonably estimate as many as 20,000 Christians in Jerusalem at this time.2 It’s no wonder somefolks were being overlooked!

Specifically, a particular group of widows voiced a complaint. Verse 1 tells us that “the Hellenists” complained against “the Hebrews” on behalf of their widows. Scholars debate the precise significance of the two groups. Primarily, the terms refer to 1 This passage seems to imply that the early Christians had organized a systemof relief and support similar to what was common among the Jews of the day, consisting of both a daily distribution of small meals and a weekly distribution of food and clothing. Cf. Clinton E. Arnold, “Acts,” in Zondervan Illustrated Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts (edited by Clinton E. Arnold; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), vol. 2, pg. 262.2 E.g., John MacArthur, Acts (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pg. 176.

2

difference in primary language;3 the Hellenists were former Jews who spoke primarily or exclusively Greek, and the Hebrews were former Jews who spoke primarily or exclusively Aramaic.

The Hellenists had probably lived much of their lives outside of Judea. Often, Jews who lived outside of Judea would move to Jerusalem as they got older, wanting to be closer to the Temple before they died. And, very often, the men would die before theirwives, leaving quite a population of widows in Jerusalem, whose children and other family still lived abroad. Many of these widows became Christians and were dependent on the care of the church in Jerusalem.4 In fact, their needs were being cared for daily. The last phrase of verse 1, which the ESV translates “daily distribution,” suggests that these widows were coming to the apostles—or were being visited by the apostles—every day to receive food. The phrase can also be translated “daily ministry,”5 and that will be important to know in just a bit.

3 The debate raises the question whether the only difference between the two groups is linguistic or whether there may also have been some cultural differences between the two groups. Largely a moot point, in my opinion, I follow the conclusion of David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (The Pillar NewTestament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pgs. 230-231, who writes, “A narrowly ‘linguistic’ definition of Hellēnistai allows us to make the best sense of its different application in Luke’s three contexts. In 6:1 it refers to Jewish Christians who spoke only Greek, as opposed to Jewish Christians whose everyday spoken language was Aramaic (or less likely Hebrew),but who may also have spoken Greek. In 9:29 it refers to Greek-speaking Jews who were hostile to Christianity, but in 11:20 it refers to Greek-speaking persons in Antioch who were not Jews at all. The context defines more precisely in each case what sort of Greek-speaking person Luke has in mind, ‘ranging from Jewish Christians, to Jews, to pagans.’”4 Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), pg. 330.5 The Greek word is διακονία (diakonia), which produces the word “diaconate” inEnglish, and the related Greek word διάκονος (diakonos) produces the English word “deacon.” Thus, many throughout church history have seen this passage as providing the historical roots for the church office of deacon. However, the noun “deacon” does not appear in this passage, and the Seven are never referred to by that term. In fact, Luke never uses the noun διάκονος. The wordfundamentally means “a servant who has been appointed for a particular task.” Thus, the “daily ministry” refers to the “official assignment related to charitable activity.” Schnabel, Acts, pg. 330. See also the important work of Lynn H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life

3

Now, perhaps you can imagine that there could be some conflict ifyou have a potentially large group of widows that you are responsible for feeding every day, and some of that number don’t speak your primary language. It seems that the Hellenstic, Greek-speaking widows, who were surely a minority group in the church, were saying, “Look: those prejudiced Aramaic-speaking apostles are only taking care of the Aramaic-speaking widows. We’re being ignored! We need food, too!”6 They probably complained among themselves, and then a delegation of Hellenists brought their complaint to the apostles.

So, how do the apostles respond? What would you do? The Old Testament is really clear that God intends for his people to takecare of the widows.7 In fact, Israel’s failure to care for their own widows is cited as one of the reasons God’s judgment came against the nation.8 Shouldn’t they drop whatever they’re doing and make sure that they see it done?

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), pgs. 304-306, 312-313. Likewise, see the comprehensive discussion in Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, “διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), vol. 2, pgs. 81-93, whose opening paragraph states, “διακονέωhas the special quality of indicating very personally the service rendered to another. It is thus closest to ὑπηρετέω, but in διακονέω there is a stronger approximation to the concept of a service of love.” I am also attracted to thesuggestion of F. F. Bruce that, where the term diakonos appears as an office alongside “overseer” or “elder,” “it might be better to render it by the more general term ‘minister.’” See F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), pg. 122. The noun διακονία, “ministry,” appears in Acts referring to the proclamation of the Word and to care for the poor. Cf. A. Weiser, “διακονέω” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), vol. 1, pg. 304.6 Cf. Phillip W. Sell, “The Seven in Acts 6 as a Ministry Team,” Bibliotheca Sacra167:665 (Jan.-March 2010): pg. 61, who notes, “[T]heir mission was not primarily about food distribution, but about accusations of prejudice and unfair treatment.”7 Cf. Ex. 22:22-24; Deut. 10:18; 14:28-29; 16:11; 24:17-21; 26:12-13.8 Cf. Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Ezek. 22:6-7; Mal. 3:5.

4

Look at verses 2-4: And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”The Twelve recommend a solution in the form of a committee of seven men.9

Notice that the apostles do not deny the reality of the problem. They don’t attempt to lay blame. They simply reiterate their confidence in what God has called them to do, while at the same time suggesting a workable solution that suits everybody.10 Interestingly, this is the only time in the Book of Acts that theapostles are referred to as “the Twelve.” They act as the genuineleaders of the church, calling a meeting. The ESV says they summoned “the full number of the disciples,” but that is a bit misleading. Are we to believe that they called together all 20,000 Christians in Jerusalem? Where would they all meet all at once? The Greek word simply means “the multitude,” and so it might simply refer to the multitude of the Hellenist disciples,11

or a large group of disciples, both Hebrew and Hellenist.

The apostles first reiterate their confidence in what God has called them to do. They say, “It is not right that we should giveup preaching the word of God.” That first phrase could be better translated “it is not pleasing,” which would imply that it is notpleasing to God.12 I think we can infer that the Hellenists have asked the apostles to do something about the situation of their widows. They think the apostles are responsible, and the apostlesdo take responsibility by providing a solution that doesn’t take them away from what’s most important. Even in the face of a crisis like this, the apostles are unwavering in their commitment9 See Sell, “Ministry Team,” pgs. 58-67.10 Cf. Schnabel, Acts, pg. 338.11 So Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts (edited by Frank E. Gæbelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), pg. 330.12 The Greek word always indicates an activity or situation that pleases another person. Cf. John 8:29; Acts 12:3; 1 John 3:22.

5

to preaching God’s Word. In part, it may be their dedication to preaching that resulted in the Hellenistic widows being overlooked. After all, Acts 5:42 said, And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. If that’s what they were doing every day, how could they have time to ensure that the growing number of widows were getting fed every day?

Now, we can think that the apostles are demeaning the widows here. The apostles envision exchanging preaching for “serving tables,” and we might think that they are saying that serving tables is a “lower” job. But I don’t think they are saying that at all. In fact, we might better translate that last phrase of verse 2 as “to minister at the tables.” Remember in verse 1 how Luke described the situation as the widows being neglected in the“daily ministry.” Keep that thought in mind. And, we should also remember that Jesus often portrayed the coming of the kingdom as a feast or a banquet where he would “minister at the tables,” which would be filled with Jews, Gentiles, and those formerly considered outcasts, like widows.13

So, in verse 3, we see the apostles telling the assembled church,the gathering of a multitude of the disciples in Jerusalem, to choose seven men14 among them to address the need.15 The church

13 David W. Pao, “Acts” in The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary (edited by Gary M. Burge and Andrew E. Hill; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), pg. 1180. Cf. Luke 5:27-32; 7:34; 14:8-24; 19:7.14 Choosing seven men for this task may reflect Jewish tradition whereby sevenwell-respected men were chosen to comprise official councils. Cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary (edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), vol. 2, pg. 367.15 The word translated “duty” in the ESV is more often translated “need.” Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), pg. 260, who writes, “These men will perform their appointed duty, or task. The term for “duty” (χρεία, chreia) contains two ideas. It means to deal with a certain task or business that itself reflects acorresponding need.”

6

should choose them, and the apostles will appoint them.16 So, what should these seven men be like?17

Well, the apostles say they should be “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” They must have a good reputation amongthe Jerusalem Christians; they must be well-thought of and respected. The phrase “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” should probably be understood as one quality. Now, I should alert you tosomething that you can see well in the ESV, but you may not be able to see quite so well in all English translations. The phrase“full of” does not reflect the same Greek phrase as “filled with”and has a different meaning. We’ve seen the apostles several times “filled with the Spirit,” and they immediately speak God’s Word in some way.18

The phrase “full of the Spirit” also occurs several times in Acts, but it does not refer to that situational empowering for speaking God’s Word. That’s what “filled with the Spirit” always means in Luke and Acts. The phrase “full of the Spirit” means noticeably characterized by the Spirit’s presence, and it is the normal Christian life on display for all to see. G. Campbell Morgan explains: “A man full of the Spirit is one who is living anormal Christian life. Fulness of the Spirit is not a state of spiritual aristocracy, to which few can attain. Anything less than the fulness of the Spirit for the Christian man is disease

16 Cf. MacArthur, Acts, pgs. 181-182, who writes, “Here we see that the congregation is to nominate certain spiritually qualified men to serve, with the final appointment resting with those already in position as teachers and spiritual leaders. Still, it seems best to see the selection of these seven asthe Jerusalem church’s response to a temporary crisis.”17 This selection does set a precedent for how all ministers should be chosen in churches. Cf. Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Ministry in the New Testament,” in The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study (edited by D. A. Carson; London: World Evangelical Fellowship, 1987), pgs. 164-165, who writes, “The priority manifestly rests with the charismatic qualifications of the men, and this provides a warrant for assuming that the apostolic church chose its ‘ministers’ (using the term diakonos in a broad sense) consistently ‘from amongthose persons in whom the Spirit’s gifts were most evident.’”18 See Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9-10.

7

of the spiritual life, a low ebb of vitality. Fulness of the Spirit is not abnormal, but normal Christian life.”19

When the text says “full of wisdom” it means that the person is noticeably characterized by wisdom. With Spirit and wisdom so tightly connected in this phrase, it probably means that these men should be noticeably characterized by wisdom that is given bythe Holy Spirit.20 We’ll see the phrase “full of” a couple more times in this passage, and we’ll see that it refers to a quality or trait that is obviously apparent and noticeable by other people.21

So, with that instruction in mind, the apostles once again reiterate their continued commitment to what God has called them to do in verse 4: But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word. We’ve seen all the Christians devoted to prayer in Acts 1:14 and 2:42.22 Here, the apostles state theirintent to keep prayer as a priority that cannot be interrupted. Prayer is so important for the apostles’ leadership that someone else must take care of these widows. And we see their intent to remain devoted to “the ministry of the word.” Now, that’s the third time in this passage a “ministry” word has appeared; in Greek, it’s the same exact word as we saw in verse 1, referring to the “daily distribution.” The apostles do not see taking care of the widows as a lesser task than preaching the Word; rather, they see it equally as a ministry that God has assigned, but theyrecognize that there needs to be a division of labor. While the Twelve serve the Word of God, the bread of life, to people, the Seven will put bread on the tables for these widows.

19 Quoted in R. Kent Hughes, Acts: The Church Afire (Preaching the Word; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1996), pg. 96.20 Cf. Schnabel, Acts, pg. 332, who writes, “There should be evidence that their lives have been transformed by the presence of the Holy Spirit bestowed on them when they became believers in Jesus (cf. 2:38). There should be evidence that they can make good judgments, an important factor in the ministry of daily food distribution.”21 See Acts 6:3, 5, 8; 7:55; 9:36; 11:24; 13:10; 19:28. Cf. also Luke 4:1; 5:12.22 Cf. also Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2.

8

Well, just as it would not have been pleasing to God for the apostles to abandon prayer and preaching, so it is pleasing to the church to select these seven men to take care of the Hellenistic widows. In verse 5, we see the list of the Seven: Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. All seven are Greek names, and we should probably surmise that these are Hellenistic men to serve Hellenistic widows. If there was a language gap between theAramaic-speaking Christians and the Greek-speaking Christians, itmakes sense to make sure they pick responsible men who can actually speak their language!

Well, of these seven, we know nothing about four—Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas—and we know a tiny detail about Nicolaus—that he was a proselyte of Antioch. Now, that means thatNicolaus was a Gentile, a non-Jew by birth, but he became a Jew at some point in his life, accepting circumcision and submitting to the Law. We often think of Cornelius as the first Gentile who became a Christian, but actually it seems that Nicolaus needs to be recognized for that honor.23 Nicolaus was Jewish by practice, but Gentile by birth. Why does Luke tell us this detail? It probably provides with an important clue about why this story is even in the text. It hints forward that we are about to have a transition toward the Gentile mission.24

Stephen and Philip we know quite a lot about, but in this initiallist we get no extra details about Philip, and the spotlight is entirely on Stephen. He is “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” Again, that’s probably one quality: Stephen was noticeably characterized by faith that is given by the Holy Spirit.25 One commentator puts it this way: “His faith was not different in kind from the faith that all Christians have, but exceptional in the extent to which he was willing to trust 23 Cf. Schnabel, Acts, pg. 334. See also Bock, Acts, pg. 261.24 Cf. Richard I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), pg. 155.25 Cf. Schnabel, Acts, pg. 333, who writes, “Stephen...was...a man whose life was visibly influenced by his faith in Jesus and by the presence of the Holy Spirit.”

9

Christ, to take him at his word and to risk all for Christ’s sake.”26

Verse 6 then tells us that these seven were presented to the apostles, who prayed for them and laid their hands on them. Laying hands on them seems to have been their way of publicly commissioning them for this task.27 In a sense, they were visually delegating authority to these seven men to provide for this need in the church.

This whole scene is reminiscent of a scene in the Old Testament, in Numbers 11. Here we have widows complaining about food; there we have the Israelites in the wilderness complaining about food. They complained to Moses because they were tired of the manna andwanted meat to eat. Moses then prayed to God admitting his inability to care for the people well by himself. So, God told Moses to choose seventy elders of Israel, so that God would put his Spirit on the seventy elders so that they could help Moses “bear the burden of the people” (see Num. 11:17). Here the apostles recognized their inability to care for the widows, so they appointed seven men who were already recognized as “full of the Spirit” by the church to enable the apostles to continue their ministry unhindered.

So, what’s the outcome? Verse 7: And the word of God continued toincrease, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to thefaith. The increase of disciples seems to have precipitated the problem, but the solution the apostles suggested overcame the problem so that the number of disciples multiplied greatly!

This also is reminiscent of a very important scene in the Old Testament in Exod. 1. At the beginning of the book of Exodus, 70 Israelites were living in Egypt, the families of the 12 sons of 26 David Williams, as quoted in Ajith Fernando, Acts (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), pg. 244.27 Cf. Sell, “Ministry Team,” pg. 62. It was probably not a special rite of ordination and it certainly didn’t give them the Holy Spirit, since they were chosen because they were clearly “full of the Spirit.” Cf. Arnold, “Acts,” pg.263.

10

Jacob. But after the twelve brothers died, Exod. 1:7 says, But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. Then, the new Pharaoh of Egypt begins oppressing the Israelites, enslaving them and abusing them. Exod.1:12a says, But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. Then, the Pharaoh orders the Hebrew midwives to kill any sons born to Israelite women, but the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh. In fact, it’s almost like they said what the apostles said to the Jewish leaders in Acts 5:29: We must obey God rather than men. Then, of course, we read this line in Exod. 1:20b: And the people multiplied and grewvery strong. As then, so now, and the agent of this multiplication is the word of God!

Whereas earlier it was said, “And more than ever believers were added to the Lord” (Acts 5:14), now “the number of the disciples multiplied greatly” (Acts 6:7)! And, to top it all off, Luke highlights the conversion of “a great many of the priests.” Now, why does Luke mention that right here? Well, it seems to me that Luke is throwing another hint for us readers that we are near theclimax of the mission in Jerusalem. Remember Acts 1:8, which setsthe outline of the progress of the Word through the Book of Acts:But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. The witness in Jerusalem is almost complete. Transforming Jewish priests into Christians is almost the climax of Jewish belief before the ultimate transition to the mission to Gentiles.28 The true climaxwould have to be the conversion of the Persecuting Pharisee, Saulof Tarsus, which will come in chapter 9.

Now, verses 8-15 zoom the camera in on one of the Seven chosen totake care of the Hellenistic widows. We might expect to see 28 Cf. John Piper, “Stephen’s Crime: ‘Jesus Will Destroy the Temple,’” a sermon preached at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN, March 24, 1991, who says of this last clause of verse 7, “What that really means is: a great many priests came to believe that they were out of a job. A great many priests came to believe that Jesus is the one and only high priest now, and will never die, and all Christians are priests in his service.”

11

Stephen doing just that, serving food to the widows in the daily food ministry. But no, that is not what we see at all. In fact, we are not even told how long this ministry went on.29 We see Stephen described in terms that remind us very much of the apostles themselves. Look at verse 8: And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. There’s another “full of” description. Like the other two, this probably intends a single quality; Stephen is noticeably characterized by power given by God’s grace. If you’re reading the KJV or the NKJV, you see “full of faith and power,” because some Greek manuscripts have the word “faith” instead of “grace.” But, it’s very clear that Luke actually wrote the word “grace” here, as all other English translations indicate.

Now, people notice this power because he is performing “wonders and signs.” We might imagine that, as he is serving food to Hellenistic widows, they might bring a sickly widow to him, and he healed her. Those are the kinds of “wonders and signs” that we’ve seen the apostles perform in the Book of Acts. However, some are not happy with the power they see in Stephen.30 Look at verses 9-10: Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of theAlexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Now, it’s unclear in 29 Cf. Sell, “Ministry Team,” pg. 61. See also Armin J. Panning, “Acts 6: The ‘Ministry’ of the Seven,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 93 (Winter 1996): pg. 16, whowrites, “Stephen’s work as a ‘deacon’ obviously was curtailed by the opposition that led to his martyrdom. But the whole relief program that occasioned the appointment of the Seven may shortly have come to an end as well. Luke reports, ‘On that day [of Stephen’s martyrdom] a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria’(8:1). Those are conditions that would make it impossible to continue a formal relief program in Jerusalem. That the church would be able to carry it out in the wider geographical areas of Judea and Samaria under persecution circumstances seems unlikely.” See also MacArthur, Acts, pg. 182.30 Cf. Peterson, Acts, pg. 238, who writes, “Full of God’s grace and power, as key figures in biblical history were, Stephen did great wonders and signs, like Jesus (2:22), the apostles (2:43; 4:16, 33; 5:12), and Moses (7:36). Stephen is presented as a prophetic figure, fulfilling a pattern of prophetic destiny which involves rejection and suffering, but ultimately vindication by God.”

12

the Greek how many synagogues we’re talking about, but it doesn’treally matter.31 Either way, you’ve got Jewish men from a synagogue or Jewish men from multiple synagogues banding together, attempting to debate Stephen.

Now, Luke tells us where these folks are from, and I think there’s some significance to that, so take a look at this map to see the geographical spread of these folks. They’re all living inJerusalem, meeting regularly in the synagogues for prayer and study of the Hebrew Scriptures. The “synagogue of the Freedmen” refers to Jews who were former slaves.32 Cyrene and Alexandria are regions in North Africa, as you can see on the map, and Cilicia and Asia are Roman provinces north of Israel. Now, you may notice that you don’t see Cilicia marked on the map. But, do you see the city Tarsus circled there? Tarsus happens to be the capital of the province of Cilicia, and you might know a man fromTarsus who will shortly be introduced to us in Acts: Saul.

It may be that Saul is among these Jews from Cilicia who are being confounded by Stephen. Verse 10 tells us: But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. So, they recognized what the apostles said should be true of the Seven chosen to take care of the ministry for the Hellenistic widows; Stephen was truly “full of the Spirit and of wisdom.”

Since they couldn’t overcome him in debate, they resort to underhanded methods to shut him up. Look at verses 11-14: Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up thepeople and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him andseized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say 31 See the discussions in Arnold, “Acts,” pg. 265 and, more extensively, in Longenecker, “Acts,” pgs. 335-336.32 Cf. Arnold, “Acts,” pgs. 264-265, who writes, “This particular synagogue thus probably consisted of Jews from Rome who were freed from slavery and migrated back to Jerusalem. They banded together and formed their own synagogue where they could worship and praise God in Greek.”

13

that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

Notice in verse 12 the mention of the people. This is the first time in Acts that the people of Jerusalem directly oppose the Christians.33 In fact, it was popular opinion that restrained theJewish authorities from punishing the apostles more harshly.34 Look at Acts 4:21: And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. Then, look at Acts 5:26: Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. But now, these Jewish men succeed in sayingjust the right things to persuade the populace of Jerusalem to turn against Stephen. Perhaps the prejudice that the Hellenistic Christian widows were sensing against them is now being turned against Stephen. In any case, they Jewish leaders are able to arrest Stephen and bring him before the 71-man Jewish court, the Sanhedrin.

Luke quotes the accusations from the people twice, and it’s helpful to compare the two quotations. So, look on the screen andsee the two quotations compared. Notice that the accusations haveto do, in the first instance, with Stephen speaking “against Moses and God,” and, in the second instance, “against this holy place and the law.” The reference to the holy place is surely a reference to the Temple. The two accusations are the same. To speak against Moses is to speak against the law, and to speak against the Temple is to speak against God.

They then offer some specific details about what Stephen was speaking in verse 14, and we find that it really all has to do with Jesus. These “witnesses” claim that Stephen was telling the people that Jesus of Nazareth was going to demolish the Temple 33 Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), pg. 252.34 Cf. Peterson, Acts, pg. 242, who writes, “But Stephen’s enemies were able tochange public opinion to the extent that he was left unprotected, making the parallel with Jesus’ experience more obvious (compare Lk. 21:38; 22:2 with 23:13-25).”

14

and transform the traditions and commandments Moses had given thepeople.

Now, we must also note that Luke tells us that these are false witnesses. And, if you know the story of Jesus, you know that similar charges were raised against him before he was sentenced to death for something else.35 In Acts 7:1, which we’ll look at next week, the high priest will ask Stephen to respond to the charges; when he asks, “Are these things so?” he’s asking Stephento say, “Yes, I teach that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this Temple and transform the traditions and commandments Moses has given to us,”36 or, “No, I have not been teaching that.” But, Stephen responds instead by saying, “Here is what I am teaching, starting with Abraham,” and then he launches into a fascinating explanation of the early history of Israel, which has as its point of application to show how the Jewish leaders—the members of the Sanhedrin among others—find their historical precedents, their forefathers, not so much with Abraham and Moses, but with all the rebellious and idolatrous within Israel. In the midst of that lesson, he does remark on the significance of the Temple, how it was never intended to be of permanent significance in the way the Jewish leaders thought. He never got around to talking about the significance of the Mosaic Law in light of Jesus’s coming. The Jewish leaders became a lynch-mob and killed him on the spot.

But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves, but we must observe that Stephen doesn’t address their charges specifically and directly. The only thing he says about Jesus is that the Jewish leaders hadmurdered him, which is the same message they have heard from Peter on multiple occasions now!37 In contrast to the false witnesses the Jewish leaders gathered against him, Stephen will

35 Cf. Mark 14:58; 15:29-30; Matt. 26:61; 27:39-40.36 The combination of destroying the Temple and changing the Mosaic Law might have brought up in some of these Jews’ minds the terrible events related to Antiochus Epiphanes IV which spurred the famous Maccabbean Revolt, for Antiochus Epiphanes IV did indeed desecrate the Temple and forbade Jews to practice certain of their laws. See Pervo, Acts, pgs. 169-170.37 See Acts 2:23; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30.

15

shine forth as God’s true witness, right alongside the apostles themselves.

But, what was false about their accusations? If we can assume that Stephen had been teaching about the Temple and the Mosaic Law in connection with what Jesus had accomplished in his death and resurrection and in line with Jesus’s own teaching, then we must admit that their accusation is quite subtle.38 Jesus did talk about the impending doom of the Temple on multiple occasions.39 Twice in his ministry, as I understand the Gospels, Jesus caused quite a ruckus in the Temple courts, turning over tables and chasing people out of the building. The first time he did this, early in his public ministry, as recorded in John 2, hemade this statement that no one understood at the time: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19). Now, he’s addressing some Jewish leaders who have come to question him about his violent demonstration, and it sounds like he’s saying, “If you Jewish leaders destroy this temple, then in three days I will raise it up.”40 From that statement, we can easily see how people might have understood Jesus to “threaten” the Temple. Or, at least, we can see how easy it would have been to twist Jesus’s words. However, John explains for us a couple ofverses later: But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scriptureand the word that Jesus had spoken (John 2:21-22).

Jesus never specifically said, as far as we know from the Gospels, that he himself would destroy the Temple. However, he did say many things that showed that the Temple had lost its

38 Cf. Longenecker, “Acts,” pg. 335, who writes, “Luke labels the accusations against him (vv. 11-14) as false—though, to judge by his response of chapter 7, they seem to have been false more in nuance and degree than in kind.”39 For a very helpful discussion of this topic, see Nicholas Perrin, Jesus the Temple (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), pgs. 99-109.40 Cf. Peterson, Acts, pg. 243, who writes, “At surface level, this appears to suggest that, if the authorities destroy the Jerusalem temple, he will build anew one. However, as the following context indicates (2:21-22), Jesus was referring to his death at the hands of the authorities and his resurrection asthe new temple of prophetic expectation.”

16

significance because of his coming. For example, in Matt. 12:6, Jesus says, I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. It’s clear that the “something greater” is himself. Jesus certainly announced, very clearly, that the Temple would be destroyed. For example, in Mark 13:2, Jesus responds to his disciples’ misguided amazement at the beauty of Herod’s Temple, saying, Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. Notice that he does not say who will do the “throwing.” Would it be the Romans? Or what about God himself? Jesus does not say.

When Jesus was on trial, the false witnesses who came forward suggested that Jesus also said he would rebuild the Temple in three days, which is something Jesus said in John 2. It’s interesting that Luke does not say that these false witnesses at Stephen’s trial mentioned that particular piece of information. We need not speculate as to why they didn’t, but it is helpful tosee why that statement would have been troubling for the Jewish leaders because it sheds light on what Stephen really may have been teaching.

There were Old Testament prophecies about the construction of a Temple in the last days. In fact, at least one such prophecy specifically notes that the Messiah is the one who will build theTemple.41 Look at Zech. 6:12-13 on the screen: Thus says Yahweh of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shallbranch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of Yahweh. It is he who shall build the temple of Yahweh and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And thereshall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” Now, some Jews took this passage to refer to two Messiahs, a royal one and a priestly one, and you can see why. However, what actually happened to fulfill this prophecy is that one Messiah—who was both King and Priest—came and built the Temple, the Temple of his resurrected body.

41 Cf. Perrin, Jesus the Temple, pgs. 101-102, who also includes 2 Sam. 7:12-13 and Isa. 44:28-45:1a.

17

In light of this prophecy, it’s conceivable that Stephen got intotrouble because he was teaching that the Messiah had come and destroyed the Temple and rebuilt it in three days. That is to saythat Stephen was preaching the gospel in such a way that he communicated to the Jews around him the irrelevance of the Templebuilding in Jerusalem.42 Jesus the great King had judged the Jerusalem Temple as unfit for use. Jesus the great Priest had offered the final sacrifice that rendered all animal sacrifices null and void and unnecessary. If you want to meet with God—Jew or Gentile—you must come to Jesus and Jesus alone. He is the Temple of Yahweh, the place where God lives!43

John Piper explains it this way: “What the false witnesses did not grasp at all was that the kind of destroying that Jesus was doing was a fulfilling of everything that God and Moses promised in the law—the forgiveness of sins, a personal priestly advocate with God, the presence and accessibility of his glory. Stephen was not against Moses and God. He was not against the temple and the customs. He was for their fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.”44

As Stephen stood in the midst of these 71 angry Jewish men, Luke makes a bizarre comment about Stephen’s appearance in verse 15: And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel. That description has puzzled me for years. Most folks have suggested that Stephen’s face was glowing, reflecting the glory of God like Moses did when he came down from talking with God on Mt. Sinai (cf. Exod. 34:29-35). I’m42 Cf. Schnabel, Acts, pg. 348, who writes, “Believing in Jesus as the only onewho saves from sins implies that the sins of Israel are no longer atoned for through animal sacrifices, and that purity and holiness are no longer established by rituals prescribed by the law, but, rather, on account of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and exaltation.”43 Cf. Col. 2:9. Piper, “Stephen’s Crime,” says, “What Jesus meant when he said, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,’ was that he himself was taking the place of the temple—by dying for sin once for all, and by rising from the dead to reign as the everlasting priest and Lord of glory. When I die, the temple system dies. And when I rise, I am the temple. I am thesacrifice for sins. I am the priest and go-between with God. I am the presenceand radiance of his glory. The temple is finished.”44 Piper, “Stephen’s Crime.”

18

still not sure what that has to do with angels, because, as far as I can tell, angels are never described in Scripture as having a shining face.45 Moreover, typically when an angel appears and people recognize the being as an angel, the people are terrified;clearly, the Sanhedrin are not terrified of Stephen.

There is a passage in the Old Testament that might shed some light on the significance of this description: 1 Sam. 29:9. In 1 Sam. 29, David has suited up to fight alongside the Philistines, which causes the Philistine commanders some anxiety. But, Achish,the king of Gath—that Philistine region where Goliath came from—Achish attempted to persuade the commanders that David would fight with them and not against them. The Philistine commanders refused and asked Achish to make sure that David did not go to war with them. When Achish told David this, he said in 1 Sam. 29:9a, I know that you are as blameless in my sight as an angel of God. Achish trusts David; Achish believes David is harmless and innocent.46 I think Luke might be comparing Stephen to an angel to reiterate his innocence. If so, then Luke is saying thatthe Sanhedrin saw his innocence in his countenance. As they glared at him, he was not frightened or intimidated. He was not defensive, desperate to disprove the charges against him. He stood bold and calm awaiting the invitation to speak.

This passage introduced us to a man named Stephen, appointed by the apostles as one of the Seven who were to oversee the proper care of widows. It seems that God had set Stephen apart for that important task, that important ministry, but also for the ministry of the Word.47 This mention of ministering to the widowsalso probably foreshadows the mission to the Gentiles, who were 45 A couple of verses refer to the glory of God in connection with angels (Luke 2:9) or angels wearing bright clothing (Matt. 28:3), and 2 Cor. 11:14 mentions that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” A “mighty angel”is described in Rev. 10:1 whose “face was like the sun.”46 David is compared with an angel later for his wisdom, his ability to discern good and evil, something he also has in common with Stephen (2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:27).47 We must resist the idea that “word ministry” is superior to “social ministry.” Both have their rightful place in God’s ministry. Cf. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), pg. 122.

19

outcasts from the Jews’ perspective.48 Even as Stephen enters thepicture in a role that is intended to ensure that the apostles could continue prioritizing prayer and preaching, it turns out that God would use Stephen to preach the Word as well.

How can we apply this passage? The title of the sermon tells all:“Prayer, Preaching, and the Unhinderable Progress of the Word.” The apostles’ priorities need to be our priorities. Where do prayer and the Word fit in your priorities?

Remember that beautiful summary of the earliest church activitiesin Acts 2:42: And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Here in Acts 6, we see the flip side with the apostles’ own devotion to prayer and preaching.49 The need that arose with the widows was a genuine and important need, and they did not ignore it, but they came up with a creative solution that did nottake them away from what they knew were the priorities God had for them.

If the apostles and the earliest believers were devoted to prayer, how much more do we need to be devoted to prayer? Prayer is not a “devotional duty” to earn God’s favor; prayer is the desperate cry of a needy sinner, and we are to be devoted to it together—as husband and wife, parent and child, and brother and sister in Christ—because we can and we need and he hears and he responds.

What about our devotion to God’s Word? As a church family, our commitment to knowing God’s Word is evident all over the place. The Proverbs initiative this month is largely a reflection of this very thing. What more should we say? Well, notice two things. First, the apostles insisted that they must remain devoted to “the ministry of the word,” which is the preaching of the gospel and the teaching of the Scriptures. Pastor Barry’s devotion to the ministry of the Word inspires me and is a great example. As much as he takes responsibility for in the overall

48 Pao, “Acts,” pg. 1180.49 Cf. Peterson, Acts, pgs. 233-234.

20

ministry of Kilgore Bible Church, he remains enthusiastically committed to studying and teaching and preaching God’s Word. And,we have such wonderful administrative assistants and a supportiveBoard of elders and deacons who ensure that Barry and I can remain devoted to the ministry of the Word.

But what about y’all? What about those of us who don’t teach or preach? Well, think about it: Acts 5:42 said of the apostles: Andevery day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. If the apostles were teaching and preaching every day, then we must assume that there were people listening to their teaching and preaching every day! So, the implication for all of us, whether teacher or student, is to remain devoted to serving the Word and being served the Word. Seven were appointed to serve bread to widows so that the Twelve could continue serving the bread of life in the preaching of the gospel to all the people. So, make it your priority to read the Scriptures at home as much as you can. Make it your priority to give your full attention to the Bible studies that you might attend or the sermons you might hearon Sunday mornings...even if they are as long as mine!

The wise apostles delegated the care of the widows to seven qualified men so that they could remain devoted to prayer and theministry of the word. The summary results of that wise decision are found in verse 7: And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. Luke describes God’s Word as though it were “living and active”; isn’t that how the author of Hebrews described it at one point?50

The progress of the Word is unhinderable. I know that isn’t a word, but it should be. We serve an unhinderable God; his word issaid to be powerful.

50 Heb. 4:12. Cf. Peterson, Acts, pg. 236, who writes, “In Scripture, ‘the wordof God’ is viewed as a vital force, reaching into people’s lives and transforming situations according to God’s will (e.g., Is. 2:3; 55:10-13; Jer.23:28-29; Rom. 1:16; 10:17-18; 1 Thes. 2:13; Heb. 4:12-13; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).”

21

Let me close with a brief reflection on Isa. 55:10-11: For as therain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, butit shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Are there caveats to that statement? Are there exceptions? When God sends his word, will italways succeed? Does it always succeed? Does it always accomplishGod’s purpose in sending it? Does it always “increase”? If God sends his word to increase, to multiply disciples, it will! Always? Are there ifs, ands, or buts, here? Can I hinder God’s Word from changing my heart?

We sometimes sing songs that say God is unstoppable.51 Do we really believe that? We sing it! But, so often, we say that God won’t change us, or God can’t change that really stubborn and wicked person over there, unless we let him, unless they allow him.What God are we talking about?? Is it the same God we sing about as “unstoppable”?? Is it the God of the Bible?

Unstoppable. Unhinderable. That’s what I see in the Book of Acts as the Word of God makes its steady progress. That’s what I see in the Book of Proverbs with statements like these:

Proverbs 19:21—Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of Yahweh that will stand.

Proverbs 21:30—No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against Yahweh.

That’s what I see in the prophet Isaiah: My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose (Isa. 46:10b). That’s what Isee in the Psalms: Our God is in the heavens; he does all the he pleases (Ps. 115:3). Whatever Yahweh pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth (Ps. 135:6). That’s what I see in Daniel: he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to

51 I’m thinking of “You Are God Alone” written by Billy & Cindy Foote, made popular by Phillips, Craig & Dean, © 2004.

22

him, “What have you done?”(Dan. 4:35) What about Job? What does he say on the matter? I know that you can do all things, and thatno purpose of yours can be thwarted (Job 42:2). And that’s what Isee in the apostle Paul, who describes God as him who works all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11).

“God and his word share the divine ability infallibly to perform their purpose; human words often fail to perform their intended purpose, but God’s words do not.”52

“Just as there was no cosmic resistance when the words ‘Let therebe light’ were uttered at the beginning of time, nothing thwarts or even retards his intention whenever he speaks.”53

In case you’re thinking of times where you spoke the Word to someone and nothing happened, making you think that God wasn’t accomplishing his purposes, let me close finally with a hope-filled word from John Piper: “When history comes to an end and the trumpet of God has sounded and the dead in Christ have been raised and the elect have been gathered from the four corners of the earth and all the unbelieving tares have been cast into the fire, God will spend an eternity showing us how not one jot or tittle fell to the ground of all that he purposed through his omnipotent word. He will take each one of his children and show us personally how every sentence we ever spoke from his Word, in witness or exhortation, accomplished things we never dreamed of even when we thought they were spoken in vain.”54

1 Cor. 15:58—Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing thatin the Lord your labor is not in vain.

52 Timothy Ward, Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), pg. 25.53 Mark D. Thompson, A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture (New Studies in Biblical Theology; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), pg. 101.54 John Piper, “The Great Invitation: God’s Triumphant Word,” a sermon preached at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN, August 21, 1988.

23