Home  |  Acts Home  |  Studies Home

Opposition to the Gospel

Passage To Study: Acts 6:7-15

7Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

8And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. 9Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen. 10And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. 11Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council. 13They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; 14for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” 15And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.

(Verse 7) - And the word of God increased - That is, the gospel was more and more successful, or became more mighty and extensive in its influence. An instance of this success is immediately added.  What an interesting way to phrase such a thing.  It makes good sense, though, when you think about it.  Obedience to the Word of God is the key matter in the preaching of the Gospel.  We are responsible to call me to submit to the preached Word, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is true, then, that as men come to Christ, the Word of God could be said to increase!

And a great company of the priests - A great “multitude.” This is recorded justly as a remarkable instance of the power of the gospel. How great this company was is not mentioned, but the number of the priests in Jerusalem was very great; and their conversion was a striking proof of the power of truth. It is probable that they had been opposed to the gospel with quite as much hostility as any other class of the Jews. And it is now mentioned, as worthy of special record, that the gospel was sufficiently mighty to humble even the proud, and haughty, and selfish, and envious priests to the foot of the cross. This is especially to be held in contrast with the stubborn rebellion of the chief Priests and other leaders of the Jews who persisted in their wicked rebellion to the Gospel of God.  The thing that prevented the priests from receiving the truth was not the office, or their concern for the faith, it was their own wicked heart.  One design of the gospel is to evince the power of truth in subduing all classes of people; and hence, in the New Testament we have the record of its having actually subdued every class to the obedience of faith.

Were obedient to the faith - The word “faith” here is evidently put for the doctrine of the Apostles. Faith is one of the main requirements of the gospel (Mark 16:16), and by a figure of speech is put for the gospel itself. To become “obedient to the faith,” therefore, is to obey the requirements of the gospel as set forth in the Scripture, particularly what requires us to “believe.” (Compare Rom. 10:16). By the accession of the “priests” also no small part of the reproach would be taken away from the gospel, that it made converts only among the lower classes of the people. (Compare John 7:48).  It also showed the opposition to the Gospel was inherently a “class” thing or an “education” thing.

(Verse 8) - And Stephen - The remarkable death of this first Christian martyr, which soon occurred, gave occasion to the sacred writer to give a detailed account of his character, and of the causes which led to his death. Hitherto the opposition of the Jews had been confined to threats and imprisonment; but it was now to burst forth with furious rage and madness, that could be satisfied only with blood. This was the first in a series of persecutions against Christians which filled the church with blood, and which closed the lives of thousands, perhaps a million, in the great work of establishing the gospel on the earth.

Full of faith - Full of “confidence” in God, or trusting entirely to his promises. (See Mark 16:16).

And power - The power which was evinced in working miracles.

Wonders - This is one of the words commonly used in the New Testament to denote miracles.

(Verse 9) - Then there arose - That is, they stood up against him, or they opposed him.  It is always the case that, when the Gospel is being preached in its fullness, opposition of one sort or another will arise.  Hardship is one of the hallmarks of faithful obedience to the Gospel of God, and one of the marks of true service and faithful obedience.  This is in stark contrast to the definition the world would give to success.  They would define it in terms of increasing ease and pleasure, not in terms of increasing hardship and opposition.  Nothing could more completely and succinctly define the difference between the two definitions of success.

Of the synagogue - (See Matt. 4:23). The Jews were scattered in all parts of the world. In every place they would have synagogues. But it is also probable that there would be enough foreign Jews residing at Jerusalem from each of those places to maintain the worship of the synagogue; and at the great feasts, those synagogues adapted to Jewish people of different nations would be attended by those who came up to attend the great feasts. It is certain that there was a large number of synagogues in Jerusalem. The common estimate is, that there were four hundred and eighty in the city.

Of the Libertines - There has been very great difference of opinion about the meaning of this word. The chief opinions may be reduced to three:

1. The word is Latin, and means properly a “freedman,” a man who had been a slave and was set at liberty. Many have supposed that these persons were liberated slaves of Roman origin, but who had become proselyted to the Jewish religion, and who had a synagogue in Jerusalem. This opinion is not very probable; though it is certain that there were many persons of this description at Rome. He says that 4,000 Jewish proselytes of Roman slaves made free were sent at one time to Sardinia.

2. A second opinion is, that these persons were Jews by birth, and had been taken captives by the Romans, and then set at liberty, and were thus called “freedmen” or “liberties.” That there were many Jews of this description there can be no doubt. Pompey the Great, when he subjugated Judea, sent large numbers of the Jews to Rome. These Jews were set at liberty at Rome, and assigned a place beyond the Tiber for a residence. These persons are by Philo called “libertines,” or “freedmen”. Many Jews were also conveyed as captives by Ptolemy I. to Egypt, and obtained a residence in that country and the vicinity.

3. Another opinion is, that they took their name from some “place” which they occupied. This opinion is more probable from the fact that all the “other” persons mentioned here are named from the countries which they occupied. One of the fathers wrote of such a place in the acient world: “Victor, Bishop of the Catholic Church at Libertina, says, unity is there, etc.” - from this passage it is plain that there was a place called “Libertina.” That place was, apparently, in Africa, not far from ancient Carthage.

Cyrenians - Jews who dwelt at “Cyrene” in Africa. (See Matt. 27:32).

Alexandrians - Inhabitants of Alexandria in Egypt. That city was founded by Alexander the Great, 332 B.C., and was populated by colonies of Greeks and Jews. It was much celebrated, and contained not less than 300,000 free citizens, and as many slaves. The city was the residence of many Jews. Josephus says that Alexander himself assigned to them a particular quarter of the city, and allowed them equal privileges with the Greeks. Philo affirms that of five parts of the city, the Jews inhabited two. According to his statement, there dwelt in his time at Alexandria and the other Egyptian cities not less than “ten hundred thousand Jews.” Amron, the general of Omar, when he took the city, said that it contained 40,000 tributary Jews. At this place the famous version of the Old Testament called the “Septuagint,” or the Alexandrian version, was made.

Cilicia - This was a province of Asia Minor, on the seacoast, at the north of Cyprus. The capital of this province was Tarsus, the native place of Paul, (Acts 9:11). As Paul was of this place, and belonged doubtless to this synagogue, it is probable that he was one who was engaged in this dispute with Stephen. (Compare Acts 7:58).

Of Asia - See the notes on Acts 2:9.

Disputing with Stephen - Doubtless on the question whether Jesus was the Messiah. This word does not denote “angry disputing,” but is commonly used to denote “fair and impartial inquiry”; and it is probable that the discussion began in this way, and when they were overcome by “argument,” they resorted, as disputants are apt to do, to angry criminations and violence.

(Verse 10) - To resist - That is, they were not able to “answer” his arguments.

The wisdom - This properly refers to his knowledge of the Scriptures; his skill in what “the Jews” esteemed to be wisdom - acquaintance with their sacred writings, opinions, etc.  We ought not, however, eliminate the possibility that is speaking of the ability to argument persuasively as well.  There is absolutely nothing objectionable about the use of logic and proper reason and technique in support of the truth of the Bible.

And the spirit - This has been commonly understood of the Holy Spirit, by which he was aided; but it rather means the “energy, power,” or “ardor” of Stephen. He “evinced” a spirit of zeal and sincerity which they could not withstand; which served, more than mere argument could have done, to convince them that he was right. The evidence of sincerity, honesty, and zeal in a public speaker will often go further to convince the great mass of mankind, than the most able argument if delivered in a cold and indifferent manner.  We ought also to note the order in which this is presented as being significant.  Logic is valid and valuable in support of the Scripture, but we need to avoid the use of logic alone.  That is not what will change men's hearts and minds.

(Verse 11) - Then they suborned men - To suborn in law means to procure a person to take such a false oath as constitutes perjury (Webster). It has substantially this sense here. It means that they induced them to declare what was false, or to bring a false accusation against him. This was done, not by declaring a palpable and open falsehood, but by “perverting” his doctrines, and by stating their own “inferences” as what he had actually maintained - the common way in which people oppose doctrines from which they differ. This was repeating an artifice which they had before practiced so successfully in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. (See Matt. 26:60-61).

We have heard  - When they alleged that they had heard this is not said. Probably, however, they referred to some of his discourses with the people when he performed miracles and wonders among them, (Acts 6:8).

Blasphemous words - (See Matt. 9:3). Moses was regarded with profound reverence. His laws they held to be unchangeable. Any intimation, therefore, that there was a greater Lawgiver than he, or that his institutions were mere shadows and types, and were no longer binding, would be regarded as blasphemy, even though it should be spoken with the highest professed respect for Moses. That the Mosaic institutions were to be changed, and give place to another and a better dispensation, all the Christian teachers would affirm; but this was not said with a design to blaspheme or revile Moses. “In the view of the Jews,” to say that was to speak blasphemy; and hence, instead of reporting what he actually “did” say, they accused him of “saying” what “they” regarded as blasphemy. If reports are made of what people say, their very “words” should be reported; and we should not report our inferences or impressions as what they said.  The appeal here, on their part, is to emotion, not to reason.  They seek to excite anger and from there, win their cause.

And against God - God was justly regarded by the Jews as the giver of their law and the author of their institutions. But the Jews, either willfully or involuntarily, not knowing that they were a shadow of good things to come, and were therefore to pass away, regarded all intimations of such a change as blasphemy against God. God had a right to change or abolish those ceremonial observances, and it was “not” blasphemy in Stephen to declare it.

(Verse 12) - And they stirred up the people - They “excited” the people, or alarmed their fears, as had been done before when they sought to put the Lord Jesus to death, (Matt. 27:20).  The appeal to “hurting” the people is a common one.  It has the benefit of sounding pious and concerned, while at the same time being entirely subjective and pliable.

The elders - The members of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council.

Scribes - See Matt. 2:4.

To the council - To the Sanhedrin, or the Great Council of the nation, which claimed jurisdiction in the matters of religion. (See Matt. 2:4).

(Verse 13) - And set up false witnesses - It has been made a question why these persons are called “false” witnesses, since it is supposed by many that they reported merely the “words” of Stephen. It may be replied that IF they did report merely his “words”; if Stephen had actually said what they affirmed, yet they perverted his meaning. They accused him of “blasphemy”; that is, of calumnious and reproachful words against Moses and against God That Stephen had spoken in such a manner, or had designed to “reproach” Moses, there is no evidence. What was said in the mildest manner, and in the way of cool argument, might easily be perverted so as in “their view” to amount to blasphemy. But there is no evidence whatever that Stephen had ever USED these words on any occasion, and it is altogether improbable that he ever did, for the following reasons:

(1)   Jesus himself never affirmed that HE would destroy that place. He uniformly taught that it would be done by the “Gentiles,” (Matt. 24). It is altogether improbable, therefore, that Stephen should declare any such thing.

(2)   It is equally improbable that he taught that Jesus would abolish the special customs and rites of the Jews. It was long, and after much discussion, before the apostles themselves were convinced that they were to be changed, and when they were changed it was done gradually. (See Acts 10:14, etc.; Acts 11:2, etc.; Acts 15:20; 21:20, etc). The probability therefore is, that the whole testimony was “false,” and was artfully invented to produce the utmost exasperation among the people, and yet was at the same time so plausible as to be easily believed. For on this point the Jews were particularly sensitive; and it is clear that they had some expectations that the Messiah WOULD produce some such changes. (Compare Matt. 26:61 with Dan. 9:26-27). The same charge was afterward brought against Paul, which he promptly denied. (See Acts 25:8).

This holy place - The temple.

The law - The Law of Moses.

(Verse 14) - Shall change - Shall abolish them, or shall introduce others in their place.

The customs - The ceremonial rites and observances of sacrifices, festivals, etc., appointed by Moses.

(Verse 15) - Looking stedfastly on him - Fixing the eyes intently on him. They were probably attracted by the unusual appearance of the man, his meekness, his calm and collected fearlessness, and the proofs of conscious innocence and sincerity.

The face of an angel - This expression is one evidently denoting that he manifested evidence of sincerity, gravity, fearlessness, confidence in God. It is used in the Old Testament to denote special wisdom, (2 Sam. 14:17; 19:27. In Gen. 33:10), it is used to denote special majesty and glory, as if it were the face of God. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, it is said that the skin of his face shone so that the children of Israel were afraid to come near him, (Exo. 34:29-30; 2 Cor. 3:7, 13. Compare Rev. 1:16; Matt. 17:2). The expression is used to denote the impression produced on the countenance by communion with God; the calm serenity and composure which follow a confident committing of all into his hands. It is not meant that there was anything “miraculous” in the case of Stephen, but it is language that denotes calmness, dignity, and confidence in God, all of which were so marked on his countenance that it impressed them with clear proofs of his innocence and piety. The language is very common in the Jewish writings. It is not unusual for deep feeling, sincerity, and confidence in God, to impress themselves on the countenance. Any deep emotion will do this; and it is to be expected with religious feeling, the most tender and solemn of all feeling, will diffuse seriousness, serenity, calmness, and peace not affected sanctimoniousness, over the countenance.

In this chapter we have another specimen of the manner in which the church of the Lord Jesus was established. It was from the beginning amidst scenes of persecution, encountering opposition adapted to try the nature and power of religion. If Christianity was an imposture, it had enemies acute and malignant enough to detect the imposition. The learned, the cunning, and the mighty rose up in opposition, and by all the arts of sophistry, all the force of authority, and all the fearfulness of power, attempted to destroy it in the commencement. Yet it lived; it gained new accessions of strength from every new form of opposition; it evinced its genuineness more and more by showing that it was superior to the arts and malice of earth and of hell.

Obedience to the Gospel is an important way of expressing what conversion is.  Unbelievably, there are many today who deny that obedience to the Gospel of god is commanded in the Scripture.  They deny that it is an obligation of all men to obey the command to believe and be converted.  The reason they do this is in order to avoid the truth that faith is a work.  They must maintain that faith, the ability to believe the Gospel, is an inherent possession of natural man if they are to maintain their fantasy that men, of themselves, are able to believe and be saved.  If the exercise of faith is an act of obedience, as the Scripture clearly tells us that it is, then it become much more clear that believing is a work of righteousness, as any act of obedience is.  If the Gospel is to be held as true, then we must believe that faith is an act of obedience.  All men are commanded to believe.  There is no exception, anywhere!  Such belief must be, then, a response to God's action in the believer's heart and mind, and not the expression of his own, natural capacities.  To hold otherwise is to demonstrate, in this writer's opinion, a grave misunderstanding of the true nature of man, of God, and of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I need to be sure that my preaching and my witness is true to what the Bible says and that it calls men to obey the command of God by submitting to the Gospel.