STEPHEN ste’ vən (Στέφανος, crown). Hel. Christian apologist and first Christian martyr.
1. His background. All that is known of Stephen is recorded in Acts 6:5-8:12. His name and associations indicate that he was a Hellenist, or Gr.-speaking Jew. No account is given of his conversion or of his coming into the Christian fellowship. Though there is an obscure tradition that he was one of the Seventy, it is quite possible that he had not been a personal disciple of Jesus at all. He may likely have been reached by the early preaching of the apostles in Jerusalem.
The significance of the Hellenists is seen first in their numbers. It is remarkable that so soon after the resurrection of Jesus there should have been need for seven men in charge of the distribution of relief to the widows of the Gr.-speaking Jews alone. This indicates the presence of thousands of Christians in Jerusalem whose native tongue was Gr. Another surprise is the early transformation of the Church from a Jewish movement to a fellowship composed almost exclusively of Gentiles. It goes almost without saying that the Hellenists had a crucial part in this transition. This development required a different leadership from that provided by the twelve apostles. Jews and Gentiles were separated by the major barriers of race, geography, and language. Hellenistic Jews, many of whom had lived outside of Pal., had overcome part of the barriers and had learned to live with Gentiles. When converted, they readily adapted the message to a Gr. context and held it in readiness when the Spirit of God moved the Church to broaden its witness to the Gentiles. Stephen’s insights were a significant contribution in this direction.
2. His work. Stephen’s qualifications and leadership were of such a nature that some commentators find it hard to believe that he ever really “served tables.” He is named first in the list of the Seven in Acts 6:5. He was “full of grace and power” (v. 8). He worked miracles (v. 8) and spoke with wisdom and spiritual power (v. 10). The Seven were appointed to the specific task of caring for the needs of the widows of the Hellenists in the daily distributions of food (vv. 1-3). Though no mention is made of their discharging this duty, it can be assumed that they did so with efficiency. At any rate, the church grew (v. 7).
It is quite possible that a more fundamental problem than a supposed discrimination in the handling of food caused the discontent. It may have been the lack of adequate Hel. representation on the administrative level of the church. With numbers approaching those of the Heb.- or Aram.-speaking Jews and with strong feelings of loyalty to their group, they likely wanted a commensurate voice. It does not follow that Stephen and the Seven were to devote all their time to “serving tables” for the Hellenists, any more than the apostles had served the others. They were administratively responsible to see that the work was done. Then they were freely to follow the ministry of the Word as the Holy Spirit motivated and enabled them. In this latter capacity, Stephen, at least, excelled.
3. His beliefs. According to the report in Acts 6:13f., Stephen was understood to speak against the Temple and the law. This serious charge reflects, at the least, a viewpoint that differed from that of the thoroughly conservative Jews. The charge was brought by Hel. Jews, who had prob. moved back to Jerusalem because they considered their ancestral faith the one thing worth living for. They would be bitter in their opposition against anything that seemed to undermine their traditional faith. It is prob. not necessary to believe that Stephen had gone so far as Paul in concluding that the law was no longer the final, binding code that he had formerly thought it to be. He had, no doubt, discovered the inadequacy of a mere formalism and ceremonialism in the Temple worship. Perhaps Christ’s own words regarding the Temple (John 4:20-24; Mark 13:2) had shown him that true worship of God is not confined to the Temple. He may also have seen in the words of Jesus the transitory nature of the law. Jesus had defended laxity in matters of tradition and had supported a freer attitude toward Sabbath observance (Mark 2:15f.; 7:1-27; Luke 15:1f.). He had granted consideration to Gentiles (Matt 8:5-13; Mark 7:24-30). He had even superseded the law on rare occasions (Matt 5:33-37; Mark 10:2-12). Jesus had recruited most of His followers from the common people “who heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37). It is clear that the observance of legal minutiae was not an absorbing concern with many of these people. Jesus was frequently criticized for allowing laxity.
The record of Jesus’ freer tendency in these matters must have been preserved by the immediate followers of Jesus. As Dr. Filson suggests (Pioneers of the Primitive Church, p. 66), many of the followers were so much in the grip of ancestral tradition that they gradually drew back into an attitude of one hundred per cent Jewishness and thus lost a basic feature of the attitude of Jesus. Stephen, with his broad background in the Dispersion, maintained this important aspect of Jesus’ message and held open the way for the future advance into Gentile evangelism. While he appears not to have evangelized Gentiles, himself, his thought and his sources in the words of Jesus prepared the way for Paul. There is, indeed, also a remarkable parallel between the approach and method in Stephen’s defense and that of certain of Paul’s sermons (Acts 7:2-53 and 13:16-41).
4. His arrest. The greater recognition of the Hellenists was followed by remarkable growth and success in the Church. But progress also brought trouble. Stephen did not hesitate to preach his views in the Hel. synagogues. Naturally, others arose and disputed him. Stephen won the debate. They could not resist his superior understanding and convincing knowledge. Nor could they match the deep earnestness and spiritual insight with which he spoke (Acts 6:10). Worsted in debate, the synagogue Jews did not lose the upper hand. They circulated among the people between the public services, misrepresented Stephen’s views, aroused suspicion and fears concerning his alleged “heresy” and “blasphemy,” and set a trap for him. They seized Stephen and brought him before the assembled Council, brought pre-arranged false witnesses, and charged him with blasphemy (vv. 12-14). The accusation included two charges—one against his person, a charge of blasphemous words against Moses that would make him a blasphemer against God, and another against his teaching, charging him with radical and revolutionary statements concerning the Temple and the law. These charges are strikingly parallel to those levelled against Jesus (Matt 26:65; Mark 14:58; 13:2; 15:29). Stephen was accused of implied approval of the destruction of the Temple and the change of the law. Christianity, so taught, was understood as threatening the overthrow of the Jews’ religion and the very termination of their national existence.
5. His defense. The charge against Stephen’s person was baseless except as one would prevert his words. But there was an element of truth in the charge against his teaching. The Gospel of Christ was sufficiently revolutionary to be a threat to the dead formalism and ceremonialism by which the Temple worship was perpetuated. Having discovered reality, Stephen could never go back to the types and shadows. He was defending more than opinions or even convictions. He rested in a vital relationship with a Person. In the simplicity and confidence of that trust, he had no anxiety. The inner light broke out upon him until even his face was like that of an angel (Acts 6:15).
The defense, then, was not primarily of Stephen, but of the Gospel. He was more interested in effective witness to the truth than he was in living. If they accepted the truth of the Gospel, he would, of course, survive. If not, his trust was still in Jesus.
The fundamental difference between Stephen and his opponents lay in that he judged the OT history from the prophetic viewpoint while they represented the legalistic view. To him, Jesus was the natural historical outcome of the OT revelation. The revelation of God and the development of the nation did not coincide. Stephen was not antinomian nor anti-Mosaic, but the Jewish nation was obstinate. From the early leaders down to the present council, they disobeyed God and His revelation. The new religion was only the divinely ordered development of the old. The real blasphemers were the disobedient Jews who rejected the revelation and killed Jesus.
Stephen made the point that God had never bound Himself to one sanctuary or to one person, such as Moses. God’s self-manifestation began long before Moses or the Temple. And Moses himself testified that it would not conclude with him. Another was to come. The Hebrews resisted Moses, killed the prophets, and continued in a largely unregenerate state to that very hour.
6. His martyrdom. The Council answered Stephen’s countercharge with rage. Stephen gazed into heaven and uttered his memorable testimony in behalf of Christ. When he declared that he saw through the opened heavens and saw Jesus on the right hand of God (7:56), the Council broke loose, forgetting the formality of pronouncing sentence. They stoned him as a blasphemer uncondemned (Deut 17:7; Lev 24:14-16). Certain legal forms were observed to give the violence the appearance of legality, however.
The effect of Stephen’s death was tremendous. The persecution that followed scattered the Church and threatened loss, but the vigor of the Church’s witness soon turned potential defeat into victory and growth. One cannot resist the impression that Stephen’s noble witness and spirit lay behind the growth of the Church and the eventual conversion of Saul. As Augustine said, “Si Stephanus non orasset, ecclesia Paulum non habuisset”—If Stephen had not prayed, the Church would not have had Paul.
Bibliography C. Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (1894), 62-75; G. Purves, Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1900), 51-55; B. Bacon, “Stephen’s Speech: Its Argument and Doctrinal Relationship,” Biblical and Semitic Studies (1901), 213-276; F. Filson, Pioneers of the Primitive Church (1940), 52-82; M. Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (1958), 1-130; R. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (1964), 34, 35, 133, 271-275.