MetaCatholic

Alan Bandy has another interesting post pursuing the theme of the redefinition of Israel. This post is on the speech and stoning of Stephen, and leads to a related conclusion to that of his earlier post on ekklesia which I commented on here (and to which Alan responded very graciously). He concludes:

In this speech, Stephen intimates that if you reject Jesus then you are no longer true Israelites. The members of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death are outside of the New Covenant and are no longer God’s chosen people. Thus, inclusion into the people of God is not based on ethnicity or obedience to traditions but solely based on faith in Jesus.

In terms of broad brush-strokes I would largely agree with this portrayal of Stephen’s speech, and with some of the conclusions Alan draws. But I find myself noting three nuances that lead to me to place the emphasis slightly differently.

I want to draw more attention to this as a device within Luke’s narrative. Even if true to a source in intent, I see it as Luke’s literary creation, and note that it’s unusual length emphasizes its narrative importance to Luke. This emphasis is also shown by the placing of it. In driving the church throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1) and introducing the hero, Paul, who will take the gospel to the ends of the earth, this event acts to fulfil Jesus prophecy / promise at his ascension (Acts 1:8). The content of the speech needs to be read in the context of that fulfilment.

The heavy emphasis on exile / slavery and exodus / return may not be accidental. The point Stephen makes is that even those led out of Egypt are not thereby “saved”. Abraham’s great-grandchildren disobey in the promised land, and sell Joseph into slavery. The rescued Israelites build their golden calf. The synagogue of the Freedmen is presumed to provide a home for those who (or whose ancestors) have been redeemed from Roman slavery and returned to the land, but in their opposition to Stephen show themselves not to be “saved”.

We need to note the “imitation of Christ” theme in Stephen’s martyrdom. I don’t know whether to make anything of the charges of false witnesses who testify Stephen has spoken against the law and the temple. (Acts 6:13-14). While Mark’s account, which Luke knew and used, has false witnesses who speak about Jesus’ threat to destroy the temple (Mark 14:58) they are strangely lacking from Luke. But did he have them and this familiar gospel in mind when writing here? Has he moved a well-known passion narrative element into this story deliberately? There is the vision of the Son of Man (Acts 7:56) which echoes Jesus assertion before the assembly (Luke 22:69) – the only point in the NT outside the gospel tradition to use this “title”. Above all, there are Stephen’s last words: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59 cf Luke 23:46) and “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60 cf Luke 23:34). Stephen addresses Jesus, where Jesus addressed his Father. And it is this addressing of Jesus as God that forms the climax to the narrative.

In short, although the identity of obedient Israel (rather than true Israel, I think) is a fundamental implication of the narrative, it is Jesus – as the pattern of obedience (or faith), the means of redemption (or freedom), and the locus (or focus) of true worship – who forms the central theme. This may seem only a quibble, but I think it’s an important one.