STEPHEN, in some senses the greatest figure in primitive Christianity prior to Paul's conversion, was one of "the Seven" (Acts xxi. 8, nowhere called "deacons") set over the "daily minis tration" towards the needy members of the Jerusalem community. Like Philip and perhaps others of his colleagues (vi. 3), he had higher gifts than his office would suggest. He was "full of faith and of holy Spirit"; and as his spiritual power showed itself in mighty deeds as well as words (vi. 5, 8), he became a marked man in Jerusalem. Himself a Jew of Greek culture, he naturally tried to win over his fellow Hellenists (vi. 9).
It is here that Stephen's advance upon prior Apostolic teach ing becomes apparent. His special "wisdom" lay in greater insight into the merely relative nature and value of the externals of Israel's religion, particularly those connected with the Temple. His fellow Hellenists, as a body, were eager to disprove the feel ing of the native "Hebrews" that they were only half Jews. Hence teaching which minimized the value of the sacred "cus toms which Moses had delivered" (vi. 14), by making "salvation" depend simply on faith in Jesus as Messiah, would cause deep re sentment in such circles, in spite of their more liberal attitude to things non-Jewish. For in Jerusalem the Temple overshadowed men's thoughts touching the Divine presence. To this he would reply in the spirit of the prophets, that the heart is the true seat of the Shekinah; and that if they refused God manifest in His Messiah, no holy "customs"—no, not the Temple itself—could save from the displeasure of the living God. Nay, he argued, quoting words of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 61, Mk. xiv. 58, Jo. ii. Io) which were easy to misquote (Acts vi. 14), that the Temple might even be destroyed, as it had been in the past, without loss to true religion. But they could not rise to this conception and treated his words as "blasphemous," and roused "the people and the elders and the scribes" against him.
He was seized and brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of speaking "against the Temple and the Law" (vi. 11-14). His defence took the form of a survey of Israel's religious past, with a view to show: (I) that "the God of Glory" had covenant rela tions with their forefathers before they had either Holy Place (Land or Temple) or Law (vii. 1-17); that the first visible meeting place between God and His people was far other than that for which absolute sanctity was now claimed. Indeed, the
form of "the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness" (no Holy Land) had more divine sanction than any later Temple (3) that, after all, the presence of "the Most High" was not bound up with any structure of human hands, as Isaiah witnessed (48 50). The moral of all this was plain: Israel's forms of fellowship with the Most High had all along been relative and subject to change. Hence there was no "blasphemy" in suggesting that in the Messianic age yet another change might come about, and that ob servance of Temple services could prove little as to acceptance with God. But there is another and more urgent line of ing. This is found in the elaborate section dealing with the person and work of Moses, the great lawgiver (17-38)—a section full of extra-biblical touches—followed by one on Israel's hardness of heart towards him, together with its result, the Exile Pure and original Mosaism is represented as something which in its full spiritual intention had been frustrated by Israel's stiff neckedness (39, 42 seq.). The figure of Moses is made to stand forth in ideal outlines, the thinly-veiled Christian application shining through. "This is that Moses who said unto the children of Israel, 'A prophet shall God raise up unto you . . . like unto me :' who received living oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts. . . ." (38 seq.). Here we have the very situation as between Stephen and his hearers; and it is made unmistakable by the speaker's closing words (51-53). Had they kept the Law dutifully, they would have believed on Him in whom true Mosaism was fulfilled and transcended. The author of Acts probably owed his report of Stephen's speech (as of his whole story) to Philip the "evangelist," who had been one of the Seven (xxi. 8). Possibly also Paul had spoken in Luke's hear ing of Stephen's death and his own part in it (vii. 58, 6o, cf. vi. 9).
Stephen's martyrdom is described as tumultuary in character, though the legal forms of stoning for blasphemy were observed (vii. 58) ; nor is it inconceivable that an act exceeding Jewish rights under the Romans should have taken place at the sudden impulse of religious fanaticism.