The urge is strong to go through Scripture, identify passages where persons can put their own spin on the divine word, and proceed to their own perceptions and interpretations, not really interpreting the text. Acts 6:14 is one of those instances. Jesus did not say the temple would be destroyed in making clear that he was proceeding to enlarged meaning for all, not only Israel. It is common to extend our interpretation of another’s point to the disadvantage of the author. Evaluation and interpretation ought to have been made about such misconceptions about Jesus’ words, noted above, on whether the new served better the purpose of the old, so to provide adequately the benefit of God for all persons. Tribalism was ended with Jesus as the way God would communicate to all persons. The church in the world would take over from tribes.
The second part of the statement is even farther afield in interpretation. Jesus taught that he came to fulfill the meaning of Moses in the law. His righteousness, in practice, would keep the meaning of the law alive and installed in the souls of those who would follow him. In that context mankind would be free, free within human boundaries, but with greater assistance for compliance than anything that Moses might provide. We remember that freedom always has boundaries. A fish is not free out of the water. The writer to the Hebrews in the New Testament was strong to the point. (Hebrews 4:12) The statement of these leaders was their own misquoting, achieved by lifting words out of context. The process is both ancient and modern. These critics, in synagogue roles, lifted selected passages of Jesus’ remarks, put their own spin to what he said, so to condemn him. There are always persons who do not perceive this common practice of distortion, so are fooled with prevarication. The sands of private interpretation defeat us.
The scene of conflict, of accusation, discussion and debate was set. (In the passing of time, the emphasis shifted back and forth.) Stephen was preaching effectively – with a melding of history and persuasion. A combination of synagogue leaders, commonly arguing among themselves, of conflicting persuasions united to accuse and resist Stephen. They may have feared for their own professional survival if Stephen’s message prevailed. The council attended the exchange between the cooperating accusers. Stephen, a man of good will, avoided ad hominem arguments. All were astonished at the appearance of Stephen. There was something luminous about the man. (Acts 6:15) (This sort of reverie has been reported on other occasions in history.) The impression was so arresting that Stephen was given leave to speak. He sought idea consideration. His magnificent sermon followed, and cost him his life. (Acts 7:60)
The sermon is one of the longest appearing in Scripture. Stephen swept through Old Testament history of Israel to make his point. As he entered his peroration, relating to Jesus Christ, the court erupted (perhaps led by the synagogue accusers), and in the ensuing riot, Stephen was dragged out of the city. He became the first Christian martyr. It included a remarkable experience, likely not perceived by many, but observed by some who would report it later. Stephen, during the stoning, prayed for his executioners, asked for his own hasty end, and was given a revelation of Christ standing to receive him. The end may inspire pause, to follow the entire scenario so to imagine what may have characterized similar, but untold stories of unnumbered persons dragged from peaceful contexts of sensible consideration, seeking truth, and godly objectives related to life and death. Ideas are not silenced by the deaths of advocates.
Alone as I write this Page, I am silenced in the silence – in the memory of classmates, of students I have known who gave up their lives because they wanted others to consider the claims of Jesus Christ. They gave, not wanting anything for self. I weep for them. They were committed not only to spiritual objectives, but also to humanity’s benefits for their listeners. Christ’s gift is total, for earth and heaven. For either the span of time lived and/or the concluding gesture of physical death, they offered the redemptive gospel. They believed all human beings have meaning. It seems beyond belief that a story of love, hope and ultimate immortality should be cause for execution. Incredible! *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020