The Sermon of St. Stephen
For some reason I find the sermon of the deacon Stephen in Acts 7.2-53 to be one of the most interesting passages of Scripture. Probably it has to do with the reality that as Luke’s retelling of the speech has more to do with Lukan Christology than anything else. On one hand this sermon is the story of Israel through the lens of the early church. On the other hand it says something very specific about Jesus’ ascension in 1.9-11.
Two characters emerge from Stephen’s story: Joseph in vv. 9-10 and Moses in vv. 20-44ff. Joseph is a brother who is rejected whom God makes into a ruler over (1) the nations and (2) the rest of Jacob’s children. Moses is an Israelite who is rejected by his family whom God makes into a ruler over the nation even as he judges Egypt through him.
In vv. 51-52 Stephen moves from providing a narrative to providing a stinging, open rebuke because the nation rejected Jesus. The idea of the sermon is that Joseph (of whom the Patriarchs were jealous, v. 9) and Moses (“whom they disowned,” v. 35) foreshadow Jesus–the “Righteous One” who Israel betrayed and murdered.
As Stephen is being stoned to death for his accusation he sees Christ in a vision. Jesus stands at the throne, watching. Stephen calls him “the Son of Man” who is at the “right hand of God (v. 56).” This echoes the Danielic “Son of Man” given authority to judge by the Ancient of Days. Jesus, the rejected brother, reigns and judges like Joseph and Moses.
I certainly agree – Stephan’s speech is interesting – what with the basic summary of OT scripture, the ironic retelling of the man who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower, and leased it to tenants and went into another country. When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. And he sent another, and him they killed. And so with many others: some they beat, and some they killed. He had still one other, beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, “They will respect my son.” But those tenants said to one another, This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.” And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. (with the prophets of old substituted for the servants, and Jesus substituted for the son)
For Stephan’s story to end with Stephan being stoned, tragic – it is a very moving story.
(I love the veiled reference though to the ‘tenants who went into another country [Jer 30:10][Jer 31:10][Jer 46:27]‘.)
Andrew
Indeed, this story does sound like the parable of the servants and the Son.
Note in John, Jesus’ brothers were jerks to Him right before the passover feast like Joseph’s were to him, just not as violent. Jesus appears to me to have fulfilled not only the law, prophets and writings, but, He appears to have fulfilled all the antetypes of the OT types as well.
Apparently James did not become a follower until after Jesus’ death ( I don’t know the source of this)
I think we deduce that James didn’t convert until after the resurrection because (1) he is not depicted as a disciple in the Gospels and Jesus’ brothers are depicted as doubting him during his ministry and (2) Paul says Jesus appeared to him. I don’t know of any place where it says explicitly that he became a follower after Jesus’s death.
Very nice exposition of Luke’s christology.