Acts 6

Acts 6:1-15

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 6:1-15 Acts 6:1-7 In these seven verses we have the account of the first organization within the Church. While this is a story which seems to be almost entirely local, yet it is full of value in its revelation of abiding principles. There is nothing more interesting in the study of this book, or indeed in the study of the whole New Testament, than the absence of anything like detailed instruction as to ecclesiastical arrangements. The incidental things are not apparent; but the essential things are clearly manifest. The incidental rearrangements are largely out of sight; the eternal things that admit of no rearrangement are perpetually in view.

Let us then look at this brief, human, natural story of the first organization of the Christian Church-not a full and final organization, but one in order to meet an immediate need; not so much that we may see the particular officers or system, but that we may see the underlying spirit and life and method.

It is necessary, however, that we should first see the local colouring; the occasion of the organization; and the men chosen for the particular work.

The occasion was that of the actual, or supposed, neglect of the Hellenist widows in the distribution of those funds which had resulted from the inspired communism of the early Church. This was not a quarrel between Jews and Gentiles; these people were all Jews; the Revised Version is careful to render the word Hellenist, which means “Grecian Jew.” For an understanding of the distinction we must go back to the days of the Maccabees, and remember all that wonderful activity which had resulted in the creation, within Judaism, of two distinct and antagonistic parties. There were out-and-out Hebrews. They were dwellers in Palestine, and largely in Jerusalem, who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, and observed all the customs and traditions of Hebraism. The Hellenist Jews still worshipped Jehovah, still followed the ritual of the ancient economy, but very largely spoke the Greek tongue, and had come under the influence of Greek thinking, apart altogether from Christianity. There was therefore a very clear line of division between the Hebrews, and the Hellenist Jews.

I am always thankful for the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and, among other reasons, because it takes away the false impression some people have that the early Church was absolutely perfect. I am perpetually hearing to-day that we need to go back to apostolic times. It is therefore a great comfort to me to see that in days of multiplication, success, and victory, there were difficulties within the Church, murmuring in the midst of development. These people had been baptized by the Spirit into union with Christ, and were living still in the glory of that Pentecostal effusion, which had wrought such wonders in individual lives, and had so impressed Jerusalem. Yet here into the company of the Church, into this sacred fellowship, there had come materialistic and social distinctions, that ought forever to have been destroyed at the doorway of the Church. I am not glad of the division for all such divisions ought to cease the moment the threshold of the Church of Jesus Christ is crossed; but I am glad the story reveals it.

The antagonism between Hellenist and Hebrew was within the Church. Here then we have a picture not of heresy, but of schism. If I may simply illustrate the difference, a schism is a rent, a sect is a piece torn off. There are no sects in Christianity; but alas, there is a great deal of schism. Never a piece has been torn off from the Church yet; would to God we all believed it. There is a great deal of schism, alas and alas, which ought not to be; but there are no sects in the Church.

We still can sing Baring Gould’s great hymn, “We are not divided”; and have loving pity for the man who cannot join us honestly in that singing. Here was a schism, a rent, a division, born of social distinction that ought never to have been recognized within the Christian Church.

What was the issue? Seven men were chosen; and all the names of these men were Greek names. There was not a Hebrew name amongst them. Almost certainly six of the men chosen were Hellenist Jews; one of them a proselyte, that is, a Greek who had become a Hebrew by religion. The remarkable thing about this, is that the difficulty was that the Hellenists imagined that the Hebrews inside the Church were neglecting them in the daily ministration, and when presently the issue of the spiritual and apostolic method was declared, the Church manifested not its weakness but its strength, in the fine and gracious act of electing seven men, not Hebrews but Hellenists, men from the very company of those who thought their widows were neglected. These men would henceforth have to do with the distribution of alms, not to the Hellenists only, but to the Hebrews also.

That is the very spirit of Christianity. It overcomes prejudice by heaping upon those who imagine they have been neglected, all the honours and responsibilities of office. I am afraid we are a long way from apostolic times! Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, If you have an angular, peculiar person in your church, always put him into office, and keep him at work. It was fine philosophy, warranted by this action of the early Church.

So much for that which is purely local. Through the local and the incidental, we discover the ideal and the essential. Perspective is the value of distance. From a distance then, let us look back at that picture, and observe three things: first, the organism; secondly, the organizing; finally, the organization.

First the organism. It is not described. There is no mention of unity here at all. Indeed, it is a paragraph that seems to deal with a quarrel, a schism; and yet, looking back at the whole company, there is revealed the Christian Church; not finally organized, but a great organism. The one Lord, and Hebrew and Hellenist Christians alike were loyal to the one Lord. The one faith, fastened upon that one selfsame Lord, and expressing itself if-in divergent opinions as between themselves-in common loyalty to the one Lord. Finally, the one Spirit, presiding over the whole company, and inspiring all of them, so that it was possible for the apostles to say, “Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit.”

Then we see not merely the one life, but all the organs in the one life, necessary for the fulfilling of the purpose of that life. They were all present. There were men there, quite capable of managing all the business enterprises of the Church; and there were men there, equally capable of proclaiming the great message of the Church. There were men there to whom had been committed the service of the Word, the preaching of the Word. There were men there who had all the ability necessary for the serving of tables, for carrying out all the business side of the Church’s work. In that company there were all the organs necessary for the fulfilment of the full meaning of the life of the Church.

They had not been found, they had not been set in order; there was a little conflict between them; a little misunderstanding; but they were there. There existed a perfect organism, possessed of all the organs necessary for the fulfilling of the meaning of its own life.

The one purpose was that namely of the proclamation of the Evangel, the presentation to men of the Person of the world’s Redeemer, the increase of the Word.

The sense of relation existing is manifest first in the complaint. These people complained because they recognized the unity, the inter-relationship, the mutual responsibility, and felt that it was not being realized. I leave out of count the question as to whether the complaint was warranted or not, as something which cannot be decided, because the story is silent concerning it. The fact, of the complaint is demonstration of an underlying consciousness of unity. Those Hellenists who imagined that the Hellenist widows were being neglected, felt the neglect was a violation of that great fellowship, of which we have already spoken; and so the complaint was the manifestation of the underlying sense of unity. That unity has most clear manifestation in the organization of the Church, which resulted from this particular schism.

Forget the murmuring of the Hellenists for a moment, and see in Jerusalem the one Church, an organism not completely organized, not perfectly working. There was a defect somewhere, but to use a medical distinction, it was a functional trouble, not an organic one. It is when we recognize the organism that we are able to organize. In proportion as we forget the organism, our organization is a mockery, a blunder, a disaster.

We now turn to the subject of the organizing in the presence of the difficulty. This process consisted in the discovery of the organs, and their employment. Here comes out into prominence two orders of the Christian ministry. In the Congregational Church, we generally speak of this as the institution of the order of the diaconate. The word “deacon” is used in the Anglican Church in another sense to the sense in which we use it. It should be remembered that the word “deacon” never occurs in this passage.

I believe these men were deacons; but the word does not occur here. The Greek word from which the word deacon comes is in this passage, but it is used not only of the seven but also of the apostles. The apostles were also deacons. It is important therefore to discover the meaning of the actual word. It simply means men who serve. Two orders emerge into view in this process of organizing; men who serve “the Word,” and men who “serve tables.” The twelve said, “It is not fit that we should forsake the Word of God, and serve tables,” and presently the very word “service” is used of the work of preaching the Word.

Consequently the first order is that of preaching of the Word, which includes apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, and pastoral work, as Paul himself elaborated it, when he came to write the Ephesian letter. The preaching of the Word, whether apostolic, which is fundamental and authoritative; or prophetic, which makes application of principles to an age; or evangelistic, which woos and wins individuals; or pastoral, which teaches and instructs the saints that they may grow; all these are contained within the one great function of the preaching of the Word.

There is also another service which emerges at this point; the service of tables. How did it originate? Mark carefully the simple order. As the result of the preaching of the Word new conditions of life were created. The numbers of those who believed in Jesus multiplied, the Church grew in numbers, and whenever a Church grows in numbers it necessarily grows in necessity and need. All new conditions of life demand new arrangements, new care, new thought.

These conditions demanded business attention. The business attention must be business attention in the spirit of the Word preached. Consequently this need for a new service was created. It was necessary that there should be an order of men, who should cooperate with the preachers of the Word, by caring for the new conditions arising as the result of the preaching of the Word. Therefore the office here revealed is not inferior to the apostolic office; it is separate from it, and yet complementary to it.

Notice in the second place the procedure. The first thing in this organism was the setting free of the apostles for their own work, setting them free from high work which nevertheless hindered them in the doing of their own. It was high and holy work, this work of caring for the distress existing among the members of the Church. It is always high and holy work, every part of the business of the Church-the swinging open of the door, the reception of the man who comes across the threshold, and placing him in relation to service and work. It is great in every detail, but the doing of it hinders the men who are called to the preaching of the Word. The apostles said, “It is not fit that we should forsake the Word of God”-not to do a low thing, a mean thing, a vulgar thing; but to do a high and holy thing, if the high and holy thing prevents our fulfillment of that which is our specific work. The first organization was designed to set the preacher of the Word free from everything except prayer and the preaching of the Word. “We will continue steadfastly in prayer and in the ministry of the Word.”

Notice the process, the method, under the apostolic guidance. They instructed the people as to how they should act, and ratified their choice, but the appointment of the seven was a Church appointment. The whole multitude of disciples were gathered together; and they-the whole multitude, not the apostles-chose these men. The details of election are not given. This is in keeping with the utter absence of ecclesiastical detail which characterizes the apostolic records. The perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit was to be the safeguard of method and of choice.

That which is final and necessary is the presence of the Spirit, His safeguarding of the organization, His selection of the proper men for the proper work, His making known of the will of the Lord for the whole company of disciples, under the direction of the apostolic teaching and apostolic authority. These are things that are very simple, and yet they are of supreme importance. Mark very carefully the four things said concerning the men chosen to work in the Church. First, “Men from among you”; secondly, “of good report”; thirdly, “full of the Spirit”; finally, “full of . . . wisdom.” These are not qualifications for preachers of the Word. This is the apostolic revelation of the conditions upon which men take office in the Christian Church. These are abiding conditions.

First, “from among you.” This is the first law of Christian service, that those employed in serving the disciples of the Church should be of the number of the disciples. That condemns forever mixed finance committees, and shows that no Church has any business to bring on to its financial board a man who is not definitely and distinctively a Christian man.

Secondly, men “of good report,” and the root of the word “report” is the same root as that for the apostolic word “witness”; martyrs; men of good witness. That is a twofold qualification; they are to be men well reported of; and they are to be men who have borne such witness as to create a good report. May I illustrate this by another passage that seems to be at a distance from this, and yet is closely akin to it; the apostolic charge which Paul delivered to Timothy, “Let no man despise thy youth.” By that he did not mean that Timothy was to charge men not to despise his youth; he meant rather that he was to see to it that his youth was not despicable; that he was not a man that men could despise. These were men of good report, men of whom other men spoke excellent things; but in order to be that, they were men of excellent things, they were men who had borne good witness. This suggests the absolute necessity for the choice of men of character in the eyes of the world, for the carrying out of the functions of the Church.

Again, they were to be men “full of the Spirit”; that is, of full realization of Christian power and purpose. There are men who hold aloof from service, and say they cannot lay claim to that realization. Let us understand the meaning of the phrase. A man full of the Spirit is one who is living a normal Christian life. Fullness of the Spirit is not a state of spiritual aristocracy, to which few can attain. Anything less than the fullness of the Spirit for the Christian man is disease of his spiritual life, a low ebb of vitality.

Fullness of the Spirit is not abnormal, but normal Christian life. Fullness of the Spirit does not necessarily mean, indeed it does not at all mean, the abandonment of interest in things of the earth; but it does mean that the things of this earth-home, business, profession, and all life, are touched by a hand which is Christ’s hand; dealt with by heart and soul and will, under the dominion of the Christ. Such men, men of faith, of Christian devotion, and Christian life, are to hold office in the Church.

But there was yet another qualification, they were to be men, “full of… wisdom.” It is interesting to notice here that whereas there are different Greek words, translated in our Bible “wisdom,” the word here is aopia, a word never used in Scripture save of God or of good men, except in one case where in evident irony, the practical apostle James says, “This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.” In this word “wisdom” there is a moral quality, but infinitely more; it is a word that suggests the reaching of the best ends by the best means. They were to be men of sanctified common sense. That is not translation, but it is interpretation. The man who holds office in the Church needs tact, and, if he lacks it, he may have many other things and be of very little use. He must be a disciple, a man of good report, a normal Christian, full of the Spirit; but he must be full of wisdom. The very liberty which Christ creates is one of the greatest perils threatening the Christian Church; a great and gracious benediction but a perpetual peril, as all the highest, noblest, and most beautiful things are the most perilous things, because their adjustment is so delicate and exquisite.

The men who are to take office in the Christian Church must be men of sanctified common sense. An old story comes back to mind, the first application of which is in another direction. A Professor in a Theological College on the American side of the Atlantic, in his opening address to freshmen who had come up to take the course, said, “Gentlemen, you need three things if you are to be successful; gifts, grace, and gumption. We can do nothing to help you as to the first; I believe God has given you gifts; we can by training and prayer help you to gain grace; but if you have not gumption neither God nor man can help you, and I advise you not to continue your studies.” If this is true of theological students, and ministers of the Word, it is more true of the men who have to preside over the very delicate work of serving the tables of the Christian Church.

We finally see the organization completed. The organization of the Christian Church is its unified variety at work; all the variety unified in order to work; the whole Church obedient to one life-principle, which is service; the whole Church working without friction, which is strength; then the accomplishment of results, which is success. “The Word of God increased.” This is a most remarkable expression, showing that true growth of organization is a growth of capacity for revealing Jesus. “The number of the disciples multiplied,” and that in the heart of-opposition Jerusalem. By fulfillment of function there was growth of the organism, and by growth of the organism there was increase of power and increase of work. Luke put the final touch upon the story when he wrote a most astonishing thing, “A great company of priests were obedient to the faith.” The manifestation of the new exercise of spiritual priesthood destroyed in the best way possible false priestism, by bringing the priests themselves into the place of belief.

So finally we look back to that first organization and see that it was spiritual, simple, and sufficient; but it was not final. A great deal of subsequent organization is carnal, complex, and corrupt. We have to learn in the work of the Christian Church that we must get back to this ancient chapter, and its underlying principles, remembering forevermore that the external manifestation may change, and change perpetually. In the twelfth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians light may be found on this great theme. Some of the gifts that the apostle there enumerates are not in existence in the Church to-day; the reason for their non-existence being that He divided “to each one severally even as He will.” Other gifts may be found in the Church to-day which the apostle did not name, because they were not then be-stowed. To try to compress the activity of the Spirit of God in the Christian Church into a formula of a dead generation, even though the story be in the Bible, is to hinder the progress of the Kingdom of God.

We must remember that the Spirit is living amongst us now. What we supremely need is to obey the Spirit’s leading, and leave ourselves to His direction; always remembering that the work of the whole Church, whether it be the service of the Word or the service of tables, is holy work; and at the gate of the sanctuary service is a flaming sword, and no man must dare enter and lay unclean hands upon the holy vessels, or attempt out of an impure heart to accomplish results of purity.

Acts 6:8-15; Acts 7:54-60 We now come to the consideration of the eighth and last of these first things of the Christian Church;-the first martyr. I use the word martyr now in the sense in which it is usually employed. In the process of the centuries we have come to use the word only of such as seal their testimony with their blood. When we chant the Te Deum and sing, “The noble army of martyrs praise Thee,” our minds turn back to the long and wonderful line of those who have been so true to truth, that they have died rather than violate it in life, or deny it in teaching. But those who have died for the truth were not made martyrs by their dying; they died because they were already martyrs. The fires of Smithfield in the olden days never made martyrs; they revealed them.

No hurricane of persecution ever creates martyrs; it reveals them. Stephen was a martyr before they stoned him. He was the first martyr to seal his testimony with his blood.

The story of Stephen is full of strength and colour. The personality of the man arrests us first in that he breaks suddenly upon the view, and as suddenly passes out of sight. He was one of the seven allocated to the work of serving tables, a deacon in the Church. Almost immediately he flamed into a more remarkable prominence than any of the apostles themselves, by his stoning to death, in which there was the merging of tragedy and victory.

We gather from his name that he was either a Greek or a Hellenist, that is a Grecian Jew. His name indeed would have to have been prophetic. Stephen means a crown. One can imagine that some fond mother named the boy thus, and so expressed her hope that he would come to some crowning; but little she knew the crowning to which he would come, the first to wear the crown of the martyr in the history of the catholic Church.

There are very many ways in which this story of Stephen might be profitably examined. I propose to deal with it as presenting the first clash of battle, even to the shedding of blood, between the forces of the world and the Christian Church. There had been one such clash of battle, even to the shedding of blood, before; but it was not between the world and the Church, but between the world and Christ. This story is preeminently remarkable for the fact that to that one “Death-grapple in the darkness ’twixt old systems and the Word,” this is in succession, continuity, and fellowship. We remember the opening phrase of the book of the Acts, “The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” By that very suggestive commencement, as we have already said, the writer gave character to his earlier treatise, and also a key to the second treatise. He connected them.

The Gospel contained the account of the things that Jesus began to do and to teach, and that suggestive phrase indicates the fact that the ministry and mission of Jesus did not end with the things recorded in the Gospel. Therefore it becomes a key to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which is the story of the things that Jesus continues to do and continues to teach through His Body, which is the Church, by the presidency and power of the Holy Spirit.

Christ is seen, through His Body, carrying on the things He began to do and to teach. That is the supreme quality or quantity of interest in the picture presented by Luke, of Stephen in his confession and in his martyrdom. Here is a concrete illustration of what the apostle meant when he spoke of filling up “that which is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.” By the use of that word lacking, the apostle did not mean to infer that there was any absent element in the sufferings of Christ;, something that had to be added, as to elemental value. The word lacking means the deficit, that is, that which comes later. The underlying thought of the apostle is that the sufferings of Christ are not over. Just as in the mystery of the Incarnation there has been granted to us a glimpse into the eternal fact of the nature of God, and the heart of God, and the suffering of God; so with the work of Jesus Christ and His suffering and His death.

The actuality of His suffering did not cease; it is continued in all such as in fellowship with Him suffer shame for His name; their suffering is His, His suffering is theirs. To Stephen fell the singular honour of being the first member of the Body of Christ in whom this continual process of suffering was manifest, this travail that will never end until the ultimate purpose of God be achieved.

We often speak of the hour that is to come, with hope and confidence, when " He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied.” Let us never forget that the travail itself is not ended; that God, and God in Christ, and God in Christ in His Church, are still travailing in the birth-pangs of redemption, toward the ultimate realization of His great Divine purpose. Here in this early story of the Church is a wonderful manifestation of a member of the Body of Christ making up that which is behindhand in His affliction, in fellowship with his Lord in nature, in testimony, in suffering, and in triumph. We learn the profound meanings of this whole succession of suffering in order to victory, by an examination of this first manifestation. There are two lines of thought; first, the fellowship between Stephen and Jesus; and secondly, the witness of Stephen to the world. The relation of these two things is patent. Stephen is first seen, filled with the Spirit, preaching with great wisdom, working wonders in Jerusalem.

Then he is seen bearing his testimony before the Sanhedrim, that testimony which we speak of as his defence. It was the testimony of Stephen to the world; and that testimony was the outcome of his fellowship with Jesus of Nazareth.

Let us first consider the fellowship between this man and Jesus. Those familiar with the life-story of Jesus cannot read this story of Stephen without feeling how remarkable are the notes of identification and similarity between the two. Here was a man walking along the very pathway of the Gospels with Christ. The attitude manifested toward him in Jerusalem and by the council, is almost identical with the attitude of the rulers toward Jesus. When we come to the dying of Stephen, the last thing that passed his lips was almost a quotation of some of the last things that Jesus said. Jesus in His dying said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit.” “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Stephen in his dying said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” There is perfect harmony between this story of how a man preached and wrought wonders and uttered his great address and went to death; and the story of how the Man of Nazareth preached and wrought wonders and uttered His great discourses and took His way to death.

Between Stephen and Jesus there was communion of nature, there was communion of testimony, there was communion of suffering, and finally there was communion of triumph.

Let us observe first of all the communion of nature. Stephen is described as being “full of grace and power.” That is a comprehensive and final description of the nature of this man. Our minds go back to the earlier writing of Luke, and to his declaration concerning Jesus, that He grew in stature and in favour with God and with men. When Luke had to describe the nature of Jesus he always did so by the equivalents of those two words, grace and power. To express the underlying thought in the speech of our own day, I would say, Stephen was full of sweetness and strength. These words are really not so fine as the others, but they may help us for the moment.

Sweetness, grace, all that is beautiful and tender and compassionate; and strength, power, all that suggests vigour and determination, dignity and authority. These two qualities were not in separated compartments, but merged in one personality, so that coming into the presence of this man one was welcomed by his grace, and at the same moment aware of his power.

These same things were perpetually manifest in Jesus. We hear Him saying to the multitudes, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,” with such sweet, wooing winsomeness that they crowded after Him; and then saying, “If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me,” with such sudden, awful solemnity that they hardly dare come at all. Here then was a man who shared the very nature of Jesus; a deacon of the early Church, a man serving tables; but so in fellowship with the nature of Christ that the impression he made upon the men and women who were round about him, was that of great grace and beauty of character, combined with great strength of purpose. These two things persisted to the end. Grace was manifested in his cry, “Lay not this sin to their charge”; and power in the words, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” The secret of Stephen’s character was that he was in fellowship with Christ in nature, a partner of the very life of Christ.

Secondly, let us notice as briefly, their fellowship in testimony. Luke says of Stephen that he “wrought great wonders and signs” in Jerusalem. In the first Pentecostal sermon, Peter, speaking of Jesus, said of Him, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know.” Thus the very testimony of Jesus by wonders and signs as well as by word of mouth, was the testimony that Stephen had been bearing in Jerusalem. Luke here speaks of the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spake; and in the second chapter of his first treatise he speaks of the wisdom and Spirit by which Jesus spake, in almost identical phrases. The selfsame words that he used to describe the work and teaching of Jesus, he now used to describe the work and teaching of Stephen. Thus we see in Stephen a man, not only in fellowship with the nature of Jesus, but also in fellowship with the testimony of Jesus repeating His works, uttering His words. In Stephen the Christ Who had communicated to him His life, found an instrument for word and work; and thus the things He began to do He still did.

Mark in the next place, the fellowship of suffering. The cause of Stephen’s suffering was that he had borne testimony to the same things as had his Master. He had strenuously rebuked sin. When we come to study his defence we shall see with what fine art he led them over their own history, until he came to the point where he charged them with the murder of God’s ultimate Servant, Whom he designated “the Righteous One.” The hatred of their heart resulted from his rebuke of their sin. Mark the course of that hatred; their suborning of witnesses, their attitude toward him throughout the whole of his trial, and then the brutal sentence. The fellowship of this man with his Lord was of the closest. Because of the fellowship in nature fully realized, there was fellowship in testimony fully declared, and therefore there was fellowship in suffering.

In the measure in which persecution still exists, this law still operates. Men cannot live a Christian life without suffering. The old brutal methods of persecution are forever at an end for us at least; but it is impossible to share His nature and share His witness without coming into fellowship with His sufferings in an ungodly and antagonistic age.

Finally, the fellowship was that of His triumph. The great secret is told when Luke says he was full of the Spirit. Mark the manifestations of that triumph. It is seen in his outlook on his foes. He was full of pity for them, and so he prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” That was the triumph of grace. It is seen also in his outlook on death.

He was absolute master over it, as he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” That was the triumph of power. In that ultimate triumph there was fellowship with Jesus. Christ never spoke of His own death by any other term than that which indicated power and authority. Men still speak of death with the sense that there is defeat in it. No man loves death. For believers, death is irradiated with light, but it is the light of that which lies beyond it.

Yet Jesus never spoke of death in the terms in which men speak of death. When He spoke of death He spoke of it as an exodus, as something He could accomplish, as something in the presence of which He said with defiant authority, “I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.” He suffered in its presence, because of the infinite mystery of its pain; yet seeing through, He approached it with the tread of a Victor. Now His servant went out of the city, the brutal stones rained on him, he was dying; and in the final agony he spoke of death, not as of something mastering him, but as an experience in which he was able to commit his spirit to another. This was the triumph of perfect fellowship with Christ.

There was granted to this man in the final hour an unveiling; in order that he might know all the full and gracious experience of spiritual certainty, and that he might have the very help and encouragement needed. It was a vision of Christ’s actual fellowship with him. Do I think he really saw that which he thought he saw? Surely yes. Other men would not see it. There are many things which other men can never see which yet are seen. It is well for us of the Christian faith to remember that, and face it perpetually. Do not let us try to explain all our religion to the man who is not a Christian.

It cannot be done. There is a statement in Hebrews, " He endured as seeing Him Who is invisible." We still talk of men who are far-sighted, and we usually mean men who see enough to arrange and combine for their own ends. Dying Stephen saw the heavens opened, and saw the glory of God. No one else saw that glory. What was it that Stephen’s eyes looked upon? “The Son of Man.” That is a description which no one had used of Jesus in the day of His flesh except Himself, save on one occasion in criticism. Stephen used of his Lord the tender title that He had so loved. Other writers speak of the risen and ascended Christ as sitting on the right hand of God. Stephen did not see Him sitting.

Stephen saw Him standing. The two positions suggest the two activities of His Priesthood. He was a Priest after the order of Aaron, whose business it was to make Atonement. As such He sits at the right hand of God, because His work is accomplished. But He was also a priest after the order of Melchizedek. When Abraham was returning from conflict, Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine. Melchizedek was a priest of God who ministered to the failing strength of the warrior of faith. Stephen saw the heaven opened, and the glory of God, and the great Archetype doing Melchizedek’s work, standing and ministering.

Because a member of His Body was in pain and suffering, He stood to minister to him in the hour of his agony. The whole thing may be very simply explained by using Paul’s words, “Whether one member suffer eth, all the members suffer with it”; and linking with them other of his words, “The head cannot say to the foot, I have no need of you.” When Stephen, a member of the great Body on the earth, was in pain, the agony was felt in heaven, and the Head of the Body stood. The dying Stephen saw the standing Christ. Wherever a saint y of God in fellowship with the nature, testimony, and suffering of Christ is in pain, He stands, the great High Priest in sympathy and in ministry, until He welcomes that suffering one over the line, and into the eternal fellowship.