Lesson: Faithful Servant
Purpose: To help us recognize and be grateful for the Spirit’s gift of leadership in the church.
Scripture: Act 6:8-15, 7:53-60
Background:
The infant church had been growing rapidly. This growth was not only in the number of believers and their faith, but also conflicts inside the church and persecution from the outside.
One conflict which may not seem very significant to some of us appears in Acts 6:1-7. We learned in previous lessons how the community of believers lived in fellowship, sharing meals and possessions. In this passage we learn that one group of believers felt that they were being slighted in the daily distribution of food. By this time, in this rapidly growing congregation, the twelve Apostles realize that they cannot handle every task personally. They need help.
Verse 2b: "It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables."
Needing help is not a bad problem to have in any congregation, but it is a problem that has to be dealt with. Our Leadership Committee has been meeting for the past six weeks making sure that we have a person for every job in the church for next year and that every person willing and able has a job. This is my first year on this committee and it is not as easy as you would think. We cannot simply toss everyone’s name in a hat and start drawing names to fill the positions. We have to make sure that each nominee is paired with a position which will compliment the person as well as the person benefit the position.
In Acts 6, the twelve essentially appointed a Leadership Committee. The task was to appoint seven men "to wait tables." They asked the congregation to select "men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom..." Qualities that we still look for today. One of the seven selected was Stephen, the faithful servant of today’s lesson.
And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly instigated men who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God." And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us." And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
(Act 6:8-15 ESV)
It’s difficult to tell, but the accusations may have been coming from one synagogue or from several. Jewish history claims as many as 400 synagogues in and around Jerusalem in the first century. The Freedmen were descendants of emancipated Jewish slaves. One interesting note is that some of the protesters were from Cilicia, the home country of Saul (later known as Paul) who is also mentioned in our next passage. We know that Saul was a Pharisee. Could he have been one of those who brought the original complaint against Stephen?
What position in our church would be equal to "waiting on tables"?
How would you describe the folks in our church who do the everyday jobs?
How is Stephen described in verse 8?
"Full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people."
What reaction do you think we would get from the world around us if everyone in every position in the church "did great wonders and signs among the people"?
Would the reaction be positive or negative?
Do you think that much of the problem was simply because these people could not understand such wisdom coming from a "table waiter"?
What does it mean to be "full of God’s grace and power"?
Why is that many times people become their angriest when confronted with truth?
The biggest problem I see today is that many (if not most) folks deny that there is "truth". Many people believe that the only definition of truth is what each person thinks is true, so there are as many definitions of truth as there are people defining it. When confronted with "THE TRUTH" those who hold to their own personal truth cry the "I" word. Intolerance. "THE TRUTH" is seen as intolerant to the idea that all values and truths are considered equal. Many people place a blanket label on Christians as intolerant, homophobic, or bigoted. Many are, but most are not. Most of us truly do "hate the sin, but love the sinner". This is a concept that many find difficult to understand.
But then there are the folks with the idea that if they are not making people mad, that they are not serving God properly. They believe that the Gospel is and should be offensive. The more they offend through their witness, the more righteous they think they are. Baloney. If you ARE righteous, you may possibly be persecuted for it. But when folks retaliate to your obnoxiousness do not claim that you are being persecuted for righteousness sake.
When his accusers were unable to defeat Stephen with debate, what did they do?
They resorted to deceit, conspiracy, and lies.
What are some ways that modern Christians handle disagreements?
When we read the next section of scripture we’ll see an example of Christian love that would be difficult for anyone to live up to.
Acts 7:1-53 is the longest sermon in the book of Acts. Basically Stephen gives a history lesson of Israel. The theme is that throughout their history the Jewish people rejected those who God sent to lead them. They rejected Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, they practiced idolatry in the desert and disobeyed God by building a Temple. The ultimate rejection was of Jesus. This same Sanhedrin to whom Stephen gives this history to is the same as the one who condemned Christ not long before.
How much time did Stephen have to prepare his sermon?
Did all of this detailed knowledge of the Old Testament come off the top of his head?
How well would any of us do, off the top of our heads, telling the story of the Old Testament?
"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."
(Act 7:51-53 ESV)
This is the conclusion of the sermon. Based on this paragraph how would you describe Stephen?
Courageous? Brave? Crazy for Jesus? Sold out to God?
you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
(Act 7:53-60 ESV)
Stephen did not fight back or vow to get even. Why is it important that Christians not respond in vindictive anger when facing opposition?
We should always remember the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the example of Jesus on Calvary.
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires.
(Jam 1:19-20 ESV)
The main point of contention between the Sanhedrin and Stephen is very similar to what they accused Jesus of. They claimed that Stephen said things "against this holy place (the Temple) and the law."
How do we as Christians feel when someone (even someone from within the church) challenges one of our doctrines or traditions, or the indisputable, absolute, factuality of scripture?
Is it possible that certain doctrines or traditions could hinder spiritual growth among believers?
Many people see truth in the scriptures, yet have problems accepting as absolute fact a six day creation, or a virgin birth, or a worldwide catastrophic flood.
Should these folks be stoned?
But they are challenging our basic doctrines and beliefs.
Should we exclude them from worship and communion?
But they don’t accept every statement of our creeds.
Should they be rejected and told that they are not Christians?
But they are rejecting us. (Just like Stephen rejected the Council.)
In what ways should we be like Stephen?
How many Christians today are willing to die for what they believe?
We can narrow that one down a lot by asking: How many Christians today are willing to live what they profess?
God does not call all of us to be martyrs, but he does call all of us to be "living sacrifices". In some respects, it may be harder to live for Christ than to die for Him; but if we are living for him, we will be prepared to die for Him if that is what God calls us to do.
