Thread: What is Stephen going on about in Acts? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028407
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've been reading through Acts in the C of E daily lectionary.

I don't get why so much space is devoted to Stephen's speech, when most of it is a summary of sacred history and only mentions Christ indirectly as "the Righteous One" in the last sentence but one.

This doesn't seem to tie up with what went before at inordinate length. Nor is it an effective or tactful bit of apologetic.

Any ideas?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Stephen has gained a high profile as a follower of Christ. The accusation is that what he has been teaching is blasphemy, that the new faith does not remain true to the knowledge of God the Jews accepted. His speech is addressing that. At length he lays out his knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures, stone by stone he lays a very solid foundation for his coup-de-grace. That the Sanhedrin are just like their fathers who persecuted and killed the prophets, that they have now murdered the Righteous One - and given that he's there to defend his faith in Christ, who else could that be. Then the final step - the Sanhedrin had been given the law and were there to judge him, but they themselves had broken that very same law. The anger he creates shows just how effectively he had made his case.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Link to the passage in question.

[ 31. October 2014, 12:53: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Stephen, in his summary of the Hebrews' salvation story, spends most of his time on Moses. To confront the synagogue leaders' assertion that he was threatening to "... 'change the customs that Moses handed on to us'"(6:14), Stephen presents Jesus as a parallel to Moses, as ruler and liberator, and in the Jews' rejection of both Moses and Jesus:
quote:
‘It was this Moses whom they rejected when they said, “Who made you a ruler and a judge?” and whom God now sent as both ruler and liberator [...] This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, “God will raise up a prophet for you from your own people as he raised me up.” [...] Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside, and in their hearts they turned back to Egypt... (Acts 7:35-37)
... while at the same time slipping in the suggestion that Jesus is the one Moses foretold.

Knowing the synagogue leaders were the source of the opposition, Stephen defends worship outside of the Temple by quoting Isaiah:
quote:
Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says,
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is the place of my rest?
Did not my hand make all these things?” (Acts 7:48-50)
These are bold uses of Hebrew Scripture. I don't think Stephen was trying to be tactful -- quite the opposite. The previous chapter described how the people were "stirred up" against Stephen by others bearing false witness against him, and it seems like Stephen decided a provocative response was warranted.
 
Posted by Flubb (# 918) on :
 
It's also significantly contradicts the Old Testament account in a number of places :>
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
That speech stands out like a sore thumb. I can't see why it was included at such length. Was it from a totally different source to the rest of the early part of Acts?

Given it was standard for historians of the time to write speeches for their characters which they didn't actually say but which express what the historian understood, is this going on here? And if so, as I would assume, what it the speech trying to tell us (rather than its original audience)?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The little detail of Saul taking care of the cloaks adds a suggestion that there is some historical content here. Plus, of course, introducing us to Saul before a short interlude with Philip and the Ethiopian.

Luke uses several trials during his account, and they often seem to be placed at a turning point in his narrative. In Acts 4 he has Peter and John before the Sandhedrin, which is followed by a second coming of the Spirit and the growth of the church (including the sharing of possessions which creates practical issues that results in the appointment of seven deacons). The story then changes focus away from the Eleven (with a notable exception of Peter visiting Cornelius, which launches the subsequent mission to the Gentiles). We get Stephen (with another speech to the Sanhedrin) and Philip, and then Paul. This speech is also the first point at which persecution comes to the church in general, rather than just the Apostles, which sets the stage for moving from Jerusalem. And, at the end of Acts we have Paul addressing the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus and Agrippa before setting off to Rome.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Paul seems to be very often in Acts, usually towards the end too.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The little detail of Saul taking care of the cloaks adds a suggestion that there is some historical content here.
Yes! Talk about a dramatic way to introduce a character... it's right out of a screenplay.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
After Stephen's tirade, what could they do but stone him? Maybe that's what he wanted?
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Perhaps so much detail is given because Stephen was the first Christian martyr and it was important to write down what happened in detail?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
After Stephen's tirade, what could they do but stone him? Maybe that's what he wanted?
Yes. I can't help always feeling that Stephen (as portrayed in Acts), was a bit of a jerk, looking to provoke a confrontation. It's a bit of a bummer when you read the account of his martyrdom, and instead of being impressed or awed, you think to yourself "Man! He had that coming to him."

And sadly, I've met too many Christians like that and I end up ashamed to be thought of as like them.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Maybe context is left out. The church doesn't seem to have considered St. Stephen to have been a jerk for the last near-2000 years, after all.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I think Alan C's note on the purpose of the speech fits well with Luke's purpose and reflects the gospels' portrayal of Jesus' message, that this new movement was not in fact new at all, it was the original 'old' intention of God. These followers of Jesus had returned to the true Way, whereas the Jewish leaders had misinterpreted God's intention and were constantly veering off the true path. This actually seems to have been a key point made by the first believers; Peter focusses on this theme too in chapter 3. I think this was not a coincidence. The disciples are picking up where Jesus left off, wrestling with the authorities over interpretation of the biblical texts.

Of interest to me was that this Stephen had been appointed to sort out administrative issues in the early movement so that the twelve apostles could focus on the 'ministry of the word', yet it turns out that Stephen proved more dynamic {full of grace and power) in spreading the word. Not a man to be limited to serving at tables. Not sure if Luke was making a deliberate point here – it was the unexpected element that crops up, just like Saul/Paul.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
After Stephen's tirade, what could they do but stone him? Maybe that's what he wanted?
Yes. I can't help always feeling that Stephen (as portrayed in Acts), was a bit of a jerk, looking to provoke a confrontation. It's a bit of a bummer when you read the account of his martyrdom, and instead of being impressed or awed, you think to yourself "Man! He had that coming to him."

And sadly, I've met too many Christians like that and I end up ashamed to be thought of as like them.
I wondered if it was the other way round: Stephen is hauled before them on a charge of blasphemy, which presumably is a capital offence. He knows what awaits him, that the only way this is going to end is through his death and that he therefore by this point has nothing to lose, so he might as well let rip - being diplomatic at this point isn't going to change anything, least of all save his skin.

Also, the stakes are incredibly high on both sides: for the Sanhedrin, he's a blasphemer leading people away from God's true path and (if he's successful) to disaster - again. From Stephen's POV, if he's right that Jesus is the Messiah whom God has sent to rescue His people, then nothing is more important than that; the Sanhedrin are effectively opposing God and trying to get others to do the same by opposing those preaching about Jesus. Does this lead Stephen to speak the way he does?

One other thing that struck me is the similarity between Stephen and Jesus. Not just the words Stephen speaks as he's executed about forgiving those who are killing him and committing his spirit to God (or Jesus in this case); Stephen's accusation that the religious leaders are the ones who've walked away from God, killed the prophets God sent to bring them back and are now rejecting the Messiah, basically mirrors Jesus' accusations against the religious leaders, especially when he's in Jerusalem. Stephen's martyrdom is made out to be a very "Jesus-like" death, mirroring some of the details of Christ's rejection quite closely.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
There is something else, of course, and I hope this doesn't sound like racist stereotyping. Away from the cool calm heights of Greece and Asia Minor, or the numbing cold of Nordic lands, opinions have always seemed to have been expressed in extreme terms. I wonder sometimes if we in the West mistake enthusiasm for anger, excitement for irrational hysteria, when it is the norm for antagonists to call each other ignorant fools on matters we would concern to be trivial quibbles. And such jibes are not always taken to be aggressive - rather what tg
he ship calls "robust argument"!
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I wonder if there is also a kind of prophet-like vibe going on here with Stephen... hmmm.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Bunmp.

I've got round to re-reading Stephen's speech and it seems odder than ever.

Even if, for the sake of argument we agree it is a literal transcript of Stephen's historic words and the author was infallibly inspire in every detail by the Holy Spirit, why did the Holy Spirit inspire the author to include it at such length?

Other speeches in Acts are presumably precised.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Why assume Stephens speech isn't also precised? What we've got isn't all that long.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
It is considerably longer than any other speech reported in Acts and it doesn't get round to specifying Christ till the very end.

What is the theological point that needs such a long speech to make it?
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I've come to the view that there is really no theological point to any text, but there is a discoverable authorial intent that may happily in passing make a theological point or two.

So I'd be quite happy with saying that Luke (assuming the author of Acts to have that tag) wanted to get a point across that Jesus' followers were carrying on Jesus' mission of interpreting correctly the scriptures, right to the ends of the world.

In passing that means Stephen (motivated by the Spirit) was expressing Jesus' understanding of the Jewish Bible, that God's Spirit had had a venerable tradition of rejection.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It is considerably longer than any other speech reported in Acts and it doesn't get round to specifying Christ till the very end.

What is the theological point that needs such a long speech to make it?
Lewis pointed out that Luke, while a great writer in many ways, was no good as a summarist. He tends to grab the opening bits of a speech (compliments to bench, etc. or in this case, a long long LOOOOONG historical overview), quote them close to verbatim, and then run out of steam and ruthlessly sum up all the rest of the speech in a single sentence or two--including the main point. Sort of like getting the Declaration of Independence almost verbatim up to halfway through the abuses of the king--and then abruptly cutting off with "anyway, it's been bad, so bye, guys."

If I'm right, then the main point of the speech is precisely that last bit: "You always refuse and ignore the Holy Spirit" [and you're doing it again right now, and particularly with regard to Jesus].

[ 28. November 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I've come to the view that there is really no theological point to any text, but there is a discoverable authorial intent that may happily in passing make a theological point or two.
Eh?!

What's the point of studying the Bible unless it is to learn/experience something about God and our relationship with the divine, ie theology?
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Well, theology is something that comes before and after the time of a text, not during it. A biblical author is informed by theology – the theology gleaned from earlier messages (so, e.g., the NT writers drew heavily – whether consciously or not – from the Jewish scriptures). But the biblical author does not start from musing, “I wonder what theological point I can make in this letter I'm writing?” Rather the author starts with a problem. An audience has an issue that the author decides cannot be ignored, but has to be addressed. As he (usually he) addresses it verbally or scribally he is drawing on the theology of his personal make-up, but his direct communication is geared towards overcoming the immediate issue.

After the text, sometimes ages afterwards, theological points are derived from that same text. The risk we face is that these interpretations can sometimes conflict – often multiple and incompatible interpretations arise from the same text. The best approach to deciding which ones are not valid is to get back to the author's intention, which as I said, is not theological. By saying this, it becomes easier to realise that the interpretations need to be parked aside first. Otherwise those post-text theologies can distort the reading that original author intended.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm not sure of that. What would you do with the first eight or so chapters of Romans? There's theology with a bang for you, and written to people with whom he had no particular prior relationship. If anything, the problem to be overcome in this letter seems to be "how do I strengthen the faith of people I've never met, and additionally build my own relationship with them?"

The answer is theology.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
This inevitably depends on what one means by 'theology.' As always, the shorter the post the greater the hostage to fortune, so I fear this post is going to extend itself. As I see it the line of argument runs like this:

Christians face a problem: incompatible interpretations. As venbede pointed out, the Christian community wants to know about God, in particular about who this God is and how this God wants us to live. For most, this is achieved by drawing on insights based on reading the biblical texts, whether by reading directly in the comfort of one's home or by hearing from those who have studied it, both past and present. In the process the Christian comes across alternative interpretations of who God is and how he wants us to live. It would have to be the most closeted Christian who is not aware of this problem, but a quick reflection on the evidential fact that there is more than one Christian denomination in the world should be enough to open this problem up.

I've used the term 'interpretation' there, but one could include the term 'theology' for these purposes. However I think that when the term 'theology' is being used more commonly it can refer more to something built up since the Enlightenment – a rational, systematic study of God (sometimes accompanied by “If you go to study that you'll lose your faith”), whereas I want to include any reflection that can be picked up and then applied to specific circumstances in life, so 'interpretation' would be a more neutral term.

There is a spectrum in this activity; it could range from one end with the daily bible reading where someone receives a piece of wisdom to get them through that day, all the way across to the other end where lie 16 volumes of a systematic theology. Of course, this problem is not limited to Christianity. It is a human problem affecting all religions (whether or not they have written scriptures), legal activities, historical research, and so on. That's another reason why 'interpretation' might be more useful a term to use.

This is not a problem that can be ignored, partly because humans are inquisitive animals and don't like unanswered questions, but specifically because Christians need to know God and how he wants us to live, so there isn't time to hover in the ether awaiting the one clear answer from somewhere. There are options for dealing with the problem: one can trust that the Holy Spirit will provide the one clear direction as and when needed, one can trust in the leader of the local community to provide the answer, one can choose to ignore the problem and hope it goes away... However the fact remains that despite reliance on assorted options and no matter how spiritual the authority one relies on, there are still mutually incompatible interpretations / theologies.

This human issue has been the subject of intense study over the past decades (though it's been known and thought about for centuries) and, yes, mutually incompatible theories on how to deal with it. The best answer I've come across is that involving study of the original authorial intention in writing a text. This is all that rhetorical analysis, linguistic analysis, study of metaphorical language, worldview analysis, historical 'fit' with the archaeology and sociological models, and so on.

Coming to the bible at last and the likes of Romans, Hebrews, Genesis, Psalms – in fact the whole bunch. Taking Romans as an example, I certainly grew up with the mantra that if you wanted theology, then go to Romans. Sure enough, it seemed a nicely dense piece of literature and needed dense-friendly interpreters to explain it all. Later I wondered why, if Romans was theology par excellence, it needed quite so many theologies written about it in even more dense language. Now I look at Romans to see why it was written in terms of meeting an immediate need. I agree Paul was informed by the 'theology' (or perhaps better, 'interpretations') he grew up with and acquired from his Jesus event and the followers of Jesus. That informed his writing. However what really interested me was the fact that he focuses on something of immediate import. His opening gambit is along the lines of: “You've heard of me, I've heard of you, you're probably wondering what on earth it is I've been banging on about elsewhere and why I'm writing to you.” Then he sets out the narrative of the message (the 'gospel') he has been delivering elsewhere. In the opening he also explains why he is writing – to include those Roman Christians in his scope of action, or orbit of authority (1:5-6, I have a responsibility to bring about faithful obedience... You are among those I have this responsibility for.”)

So I guess – trying to cut long narrative theologies short – what I'm saying is although venbede is asking the right question about understanding who God is and how that God wants us to behave ('theology', if you like), I would suggest parking that aside as a second order question, something to be asked later, once we deal with the initial question: Why is that (a particular text) there in the first place?

Bringing this back to the OP 'sore thumb' text, Stephen’s speech. Venbede's issue with it is quite understandable, when one wants to know God and how God wants us to behave. All Christians approaching the bible with those practical criteria in mind will find passages scattered across the biblical universe that are, quite frankly, frustrating. The passages just don't lend themselves to answering the immediate-need questions. Hence one falls into the “Why is that there?” type of question. What possible use is [insert passage of most frustration] to me here and now? How can I, an average pew-dweller in the church / chapel of Much-Glooping-In-The-Marsh know how I am supposed to react as a Christian to today's challenge, when Luke wastes my time in furtling about with ephemera?

My response would be: Set aside that approach for the time being, because the text needs to be understood on its own terms first. After that one can get all theological on its rear end, but it will turn out better to deal with the “Why is that there?” question on the basis of what the author intended first, before moving on to consider the implications for living today.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
After Stephen's tirade, what could they do but stone him? Maybe that's what he wanted?
Blame the victim much?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
The parable of the Prodigal Son is theology.

Theology is not necessarily systematic abstract concepts. It can be imagery, symbolism, ritual or narrative.

Rowan Williams has a whole short book on the theology conveyed through icons of the Mother of God.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I think if we define 'theology' simply as any talk or reflection on or about God then, yes, the whole bible and much of Christian talk would be theology, including Stephen's speech - because he is talking about God.

I'm not sure, though, how far that goes to help in answering your question about the speech and what [theological] point it is trying to make.
 
Posted by Flubb (# 918) on :
 
I'd like to suggest that the author of Luke-Acts is continuing a theme: the narrative in Luke is quite hostile to the Jews and needs to portray them as no-longer-heirs, a point which is well understood in general scholarship (although I'll add the point that they also think it's very pro-Jewish at the same time). Acts continues in this vein and Stephen's speech does exactly this - it shows how the Jews are no longer 'worthy' (there's probably a better word but it's late), which is why almost every point in his speech is twisted toward this end at the cost of the consistency of the texts to which he's supposed to be referring to, the errors which I've pointed out in my post above. Lukan Stephen is the mouth-piece for this endeavour.
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
I think that it is helpful to keep in mind the charges that had been levelled at Stephen
quote:
"This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us."
(Act 6:13-14 ESV)
Stephen is retelling the history of Israel in such a way as to answer the charges (you see this done in a number places in the OT).

The Council have cast themselves as standing in the line of the people of God who received the Law from Moses - Stephen's retelling of Israel's history highlights that God's people have a long history of persecuting God's chosen leaders - implying that the Council is now continuing that 'custom' by the way they are treating the followers of Jesus.

There is also a critique of their view of the temple, given by highlighting the history of where God has revealed himself Stephen's speech ends with a vision into...heaven!!
What is more, Stephen sees in that vision the "Son of Man" (Daniel 7 esp v13) standing at the right hand of God. Stephen may be in a human court, but he has a vision into the divine court where Jesus has received all authority and is standing to bear witness to Stephen.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Thank you very much.

Given that at the end of the book, Paul is at great pains to stress his devotion to the Temple, is the anti-Temple aspect of Stephen something that the author of Acts himself (or herself I suppose) fully accepted?
 
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
Hi venbede,
I don't think that it is an anti-temple view being put forward. Perhaps more of a respect for a institution (and for those who are connected with it) that has been made redundant by the resurrection of Jesus.

Paul's respect for the temple is actually connected to the same theme of persecution that Stephen faced, as it results in his arrest and subsequent travel to Rome.

The gospel goes forth even in the face of persecution - the final scene is of Paul proclaiming the gospel in Rome, even though under house arrest.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0