Acts 6:11Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

How could a blasphemous man remain victorious? How could a blasphemous man perform such signs among the people?

But such is envy. It makes those subject to it senseless, so that they do not even understand what they are saying.

“We have heard,” they say, “him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And further: “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.”

Then they add, “which Moses delivered to us,” not God (Acts 6:11-14).

O madness! They condemned the very things for which they ought to have given thanks. Those who were mighty in deeds they hoped to overcome by words, as they also did with Christ.

They constantly tried to catch them in their words, because they were ashamed to seize them openly, having nothing with which to accuse them.

And observe: the judges do not bear false witness themselves, for they would have been exposed. Instead, they bribe others, so that the affair might not appear to be violence.

We see the same thing with Christ. Have you seen the power of the preaching, how it acts even when the preachers are not only scourged, but stoned?

They are not only brought to judgment, but driven out from everywhere. Here too, despite the false witness, the enemies not only failed to overcome them.

They were not even able to withstand them, though they were exceedingly shameless. With such power the preaching struck them, although they devised many schemes.

So also against Christ they used all their strength to put Him to death. Afterward it became clear to all that this was not a struggle between men.

It was a struggle between God and men.

Stephen's enemies knew this very well. So they instructed certain men to say: "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God" (v. 11). The people believed, and Stephen was seized as a criminal. The members of the Sanhedrin desired only this. They quickly convened a formal assembly and opened the trial against Stephen. The false witnesses stated the accusation: "This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place," that is, the temple, "and the law. For we have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses handed down to us" (vv. 13-14). The accusation was grave. The eyes of all those present involuntarily turned toward the place where the accused stood. But, looking at him, they saw his face as the face of an angel. The grace of God, with which Stephen's soul was filled, was at that moment reflected on his face with heavenly light. He looked like a heavenly being. However false the accusation made against Stephen by the false witnesses was, truth had to lie at its foundation. Of course, it could not be that Stephen "spoke blasphemous words against Moses and God, against this holy place and the law." That would mean that he spoke disrespectfully, even offensively, about the temple of Jerusalem and about all the institutions and rites of the Mosaic Law. On the contrary, the apostolic Christians were zealous in attending the temple during divine worship (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12). It is evident that they did not consider the observance of the rites of the Old Testament God-given Law a contradiction of the Christian religion. They even treated them with respect and took part in their observance. Therefore it could not be that Stephen, a most pious member of the Christian community, spoke in any way offensively during disputes with his opponents about the holy temple and the law. But it was impossible for a Christian preacher to dispute with Jews about matters of faith without touching on the temporary significance of the Old Testament religion. Stephen expressed this, among other things, before his opponents. This is clear from the following words of the accusation: "We have heard him," said the false witnesses, "say that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses handed down to us." Stephen. Of course, expressed with full respect for the God-given Law of Moses this thought: the Old Testament religious institutions had only a preparatory significance. Therefore they are now not necessary and not binding for those who recognize, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah who has appeared. But the false witnesses tore this thought from the sequence of other thoughts in Stephen's speeches. They tried to express it in a form and with a character of insult and blasphemy against the holy temple and the law.

These false testimonies were all the more dangerous because they were based on a distortion of the truth. St. Stephen had indeed preached that Christ had brought the whole Old Testament divine economy to its completion and abolition.

But this abolition was to be accomplished not through violence, but through the inward action of the Spirit of God. It had already begun to take place.

Stephen wished solemnly to explain this truth before the Sanhedrin itself. Despite all its prejudice against the preacher of the hated name, it could not fail to marvel at the beauty and God-enlightened face of this man.

It “saw his face as the face of an angel.”

Were not the instigators of this hostility toward Stephen and the Christians the cunning enemies of Christ, who managed the affairs of the Sanhedrin?

They feared again to persecute the Apostles openly and publicly (Acts 5:26). They also seemed, for a time, persuaded by Gamaliel’s wise counsel (Acts 5:40).

Yet, again inflamed by envy and hatred toward the Christians, did they not wish to conduct the matter more cunningly?

By stirring up popular indignation, they could direct it not against the Apostles personally, but against one of the newly appointed deacons.

Then, once popular anger was inflamed, they could turn it against the whole Christian community, with the Apostles at its head.

In this case the matter took the turn desired by the enemies of Christianity. Against the Christians they used not the official persecution of judicial authority, but popular dissatisfaction and disturbance.

The beginning of the persecution would seem to belong not to the known enemies of Christ and the Apostles, but to the people and their displeasure.

How they were able to stir up against Stephen a people well disposed toward the Christians is shown by the writer of Acts. They accused Stephen of blasphemy, the gravest crime under the law of Moses.

As at the judicial accusation of the Lord Himself, the people lightly believed this slander. They were cunningly led into revolt against the supposed blasphemer and against those among whom he belonged.

“Falling upon him” may mean that they attacked him while, fulfilling his duties, he was walking along the street to the poor.

“They seized him and brought him to the Sanhedrin,” which, as is evident, quickly assembled in an extraordinary session.

And so he would be led into the Sanhedrin, into the assembly and council, so that there, through the efforts of his enemies, he might manifest his light.

“Malice, especially when put to shame, is vengeful. To satisfy itself it uses everything possible. What, then, had to be done to trample down, at the very beginning, a minister of the Word so mighty in speech?

He had to be slandered, or convicted, even against conscience, of blasphemy against Moses and God. This same means was used to accuse Jesus Christ Himself.

It was used also against Stephen.”

“One cannot help thinking that here too the same haters of Christ were at work. They only hid themselves skillfully and deeply behind the veil of the hatred of new allies.”