Acts 8
TFGActs 8:1
#Acts 5:17,18|
17, 18. The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem and the neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthusiastic praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of the dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach in the name of Jesus.
(17) Then the high priest rose up, and all who were with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal,
(OCA 71)
Acts 8:2
(18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the public prison.
Here we have the same Sadducees at work who had arrested and threatened Peter and John [#Acts 4:1,18|]. They were “filled with zeal”; but it was a zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, than by hatred for that which was triumphing over it. The advocates of error will generally appear quite easy, and sometimes, even generous, when their cause is merely standing still; but their zeal is always kindled when the truth begins to make inroads upon them. The zeal of these Sadducees was fanned to its fiercest heat by recent events, and they determined to execute the threats with which they had recently dismissed two of the apostles, making all the twelve their present victims.
(OCA 71)
Acts 8:3
19-21. When they were all seized and cast into prison together, the apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire weight of the wrath which was treasured up against them.
(19) But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and led them forth, and said,
(OCA 71)
Acts 8:4
(20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the people all the words of this life.
Acts 8:5
24-26. The startling announcement was not without serious effect even upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and knew not at first what to do or think.
(24) Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these words, they were perplexed concerning them, what this might come to.
(OCA 71)
Acts 8:9
(25) But some one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people.
This announcement relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by enabling them to proceed with business, and relieving them from the unpleasant necessity of dispersing without a good excuse. They now dispatch a more honorable guard after the apostles than they had, at first; for the captain of the temple himself takes command.
(OCA 71)
Acts 8:10
(26) Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.
The clause, “lest they should be stone,” is so arranged as to furnish a reason for both the preceding statements, that they “feared the people,” and that they “brought them without violence.” The enthusiasm of the people had been much increased, no doubt, by the angelic deliverance, which was by this time well known about the temple.
(OCA 71-72)
Acts 8:11
#Acts 5:27,28|
27, 28. We have now a very lively and graphic description of the arraignment and trial of the apostles.
(27) And having brought them, they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them,
(OCA 72)
Acts 8:12
(28) saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
These words contain two specific charges against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an effort to bring upon them the blood of Jesus.
(OCA 72)
Acts 8:13
29-32. To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly respond.
(29) Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
This answers the first charge. They plead guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. Peter and John had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to men more than to God, do you judge” [#Acts 4:19|]. Now, as if that question was decided, they declare, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” They then answer the second charge by a restatement of the facts:
(OCA 72)
Acts 8:14
(30) The God of our fathers had raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him on a tree.
Acts 8:15
(31) This man has God exalted to his own right hand, a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
Acts 8:16
(32) And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.
This was repeating, with terrible emphasis, the very thing which was charged against them as a crime.
In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a Savior, “to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins,” it is implied that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense granted to me. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it upon men without an exercise of their own will; for repentance is enjoined upon men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, can that which is a duty to be performed, be said to be granted to us? We will readily perceive the answer to this question, by remembering that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and that it belongs to God to furnish men with the facts which will awaken this sorrow. Without revelation, men would never be made to feel that sorrow for sin which works repentance; but in the revelation of Jesus Christ we are furnished with the chief of these motives, and because of this, he is said to grant repentance.
(OCA 72)
Acts 8:17
- The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John on their former trial [#Acts 4:13|], but had contented themselves with severe threatenings [#Acts 4:21|]. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the fear of the multitude.
(33) Now when they heard this, they were exasperated, and determined to slay them.
(OCA 72-73)
Acts 8:18
34-39. At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly checked by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The Pharisees were less exasperated, because their leading dogma was sustained by the apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceedings were likely to involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without regard to party; therefore, Gamaliel interposes his advice.
(34) But a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles out for a little while.
This removal of the prisoners, like that of Peter and John before, was designed to prevent them from taking encouragement from any admissions which might be made during the pending discussion. They were, accordingly, withdrawn.
(OCA 73)
Acts 8:19
(35) And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you are about to do respecting these men;
Acts 8:20
(36) For before these days, Theudas arose, declaring himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, attached themselves; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing.
Acts 8:21
(37) After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Acts 8:22
(38) And now I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them
alone; for if this purpose or this work is from men, it will be
destroyed;
Acts 8:23
(39) but if it is from God, you are not able to destroy it; lest you even be found to fight against God.
A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of an anachronism in this report of Gamaliel’s speech, by making him refer to a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, (l) and who flourished many years later, under the reign of Claudius Caesar. Such a reference could not possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made by Luke, he is not only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far worse, of giving a false report of Gamaliel’s speech. Rather than admit a hypothesis involving such consequences in reference to a historian of unimpeached veracity, we must suppose that some impostor by the name of Theudas did flourish at the time here alluded to by Gamaliel. Judas the Galilean is also mentioned by Josephus (m), whose account of him agrees with this given by Gamaliel. The enrollment is most likely the same referred to in #Lu 2:1|.
Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice to the Sanhedrim, in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of this advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of view from which he contemplate it. If we regard it as a general rule of procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be regarded as a mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether such a movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take ground in reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate and decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we regard Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not persecute a cause which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly most judicious advice. When we have decided against a cause, we should render a reason for our decision, and then leave it to the developments of Providence, well assured that whatever is not from God will come to nothing without any violent agency on our part. We should also be afraid to resist with violence or passion any thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we fight against God, and be ourselves overthrown.
The last clause in Gamaliel’s speech, “Lest you be found even to fight against God,” indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a result was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles which had been wrought by the apostles, and their miraculous deliverance from prison the very night before, it is strange that something more than a suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind of Gamaliel, and of all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to serious misgivings on this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded so readily to advice from the opposite party.
(l) The Antiquities of the Jews, 20.5.1. (m) The Antiquities of the Jews, 18.1.6.
(OCA 73-74)
Acts 8:24
- There was no opposition to Gamaliel’s advice.
(40) And they obeyed him; and having called the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Scourging was so common in the Roman empire, even of men untried and uncondemned, and was so common a fate of Christians at the time Luke was writing, that he mentions it here rather as a matter of course. It is the first time, however, that it was experienced by the apostles, and was, probably, harder to endure than it ever was afterward.
(OCA 74)
Acts 8:25
#Acts 5:41,42|
41, 42. However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any resentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it cheerfully.
(41) Then they departed from the presence of the Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for his name.
(OCA 74)
Acts 8:26
(42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
The Sanhedrim had now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without checking their activity, and as there was nothing further for them to try but death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they relinquished for a while their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, the apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversaries to abandon the field.
The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, but “from house to house.” In this they give an example to the ministry of all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private instruction and admonition bring the teacher and the taught into closer contact, and secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public assembly. It can not, therefore, be well dispensed with; but he who employs it most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his energies most successfully.
(OCA 74)
Acts 8:28
#Acts 6:1|
VI:1. From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences.
(1) Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The “daily ministration” is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made “to every one according as he had need.” That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants.
(OCA 74-75)
Acts 8:29
2-4. This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, ~oi~ ~newteroi~, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay.
When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly.
(2) Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
(OCA 75)
Acts 8:30
#Acts 6:3|
(3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Acts 8:31
#Acts 6:4|
(4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word.
The alternative with the apostles was to “leave,” in some degree, “the word of God,” and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and “continue in prayer and the ministry of the word” as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole “multitude of the disciples” should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of “good repute”; not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren.
They must also be men who were “full of the Holy Spirit.” Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears “doing great wonders and miracles among the people” [#Acts 6:8|], seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, “full of the Holy Spirit,” generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was “full of the Spirit” in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day.
The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in #1 Timothy 3:8-13|. The seven are not styled ~diakonoi~, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily ~diakonia~ (#Acts 6:1|), and their service is expressed by the verb ~diakonew~ (#Acts 6:2|), the same which expresses the duty of deacons in #1 Timothy 3:10-13|. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was “to serve tables,” ~diakonein trapezaiv~; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith [#Acts 6:8 7:59|]; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman [#Acts 8:12,38|]. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see TFG “Acts 21:8”.
(OCA 75-76)
Acts 8:32
#Acts 6:5,6|
5, 6. The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it.
(5) And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch,
It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men.
All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors. Of Nicolas, it is said that he was “a proselyte of Antioch,” which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised.
Stephen is specially described as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit,” not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men “full of the Holy Spirit” (#Acts 6:5|). But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven.
(OCA 76-77)
Acts 8:33
#Acts 6:6|
(6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them.
The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to “look out” the men, “whom,” say the apostles, “we may appoint over this business.” The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office.
The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches.
(OCA 77)
Acts 8:34
#Acts 6:7|
- The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all.
(7) And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith.
This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem.
The expression used concerning these priests, that they became “obedient to the faith,” is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was “for obedience to the faith among all nations” (#Romans 1:5|). Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who “obey not the gospel,” whatever may be their faith, will be “destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power” (#2 Thessalonians 1:7-9|).
There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, “The word of God increased,” and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: “There was a precious season of grace”; “The Lord was present in his saving power”; “A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence.
(OCA 77-78)
Acts 8:35
#Acts 6:8|
- We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched:
(8) Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was “full of faith.” This accords with the fact already observed (#Acts 3:16|), that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.
(OCA 78)
Acts 8:36
#Acts 6:9,10|
9, 10. The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon’s Portico [#Acts 4:1-3|]; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira [#Acts 5:17,18|]; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith.
(9) Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen;
The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus.
The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun (see #Acts 7:58|, below) identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and “brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel” (#Acts 22:3 23:6|). The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel–the great teacher of the Pharisees–the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, “teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded” [#Matthew 28:20|]. This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all.
(OCA 79)
Acts 8:37
(10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.
This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.” By the “spirit by which he spoke,” I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked.
In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him.
(OCA 79-80)
Acts 8:38
11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus.
(11) Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.
This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes.
(OCA 80)
Acts 8:39
(12) And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim,
This is the first time that “the people” are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the “fear of the people” had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report [#Acts 6:13,14|], which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor.
(OCA 80)
Acts 8:40
(13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law;