27th August 2010

Acts 7:54-60 – The Stoning of Stephen.

• “A surprising culture key”.
• It has been said that the second highest factor in establishing culture is how a leader responds when things go wrong.
• That came to mind when I read this passage.
• Things seems to go terribly wrong for Stephen. The court he is speaking to literally ‘lose their rag’ and skip the verdict going straight to the punishment.
• During this Stephen focuses very clearly on Jesus.
• Again there is a connection here that Luke is making to Moses. Moses saw the Shekinah glory of God and his face shone. So it is with Stephen.
• During stoning the Mishna and the Talmud give us clear background information on the ‘etiquette’ of stoning’ and with this context we learn something more about Paul the Apostles situation.
• They would first drop someone to their knees. Then a large stone would be dropped on them – if these things did not kill them then ‘all Israel’ would stone them – meaning a crowd [m. Sanhedrin 6:4]
• After the verdict was pronounced at least one official would hold onto the sudarin [or sudar] essentially this was a signaling flag – either a scarf, sweater or possibly coat.
• The Sudar was not used to say ‘go’ but ‘stop’ – it would be waved if anyone was to say that had something else to say in the man’s defense. If it was waved the criminal would be brought back into the court to hear the extra evidence in his defense. Sometimes this would happen 3 or 4 times before he was finally stoned. [m. Sanhedrin 42b]
• There are no fyi’s in the Bible.
• The fact that they laid their coats at Saul’s [Paul’s] feet has something to teach me.
• It could be that these people were not simply freeing themselves to throw stones more freely as I had presumed. Instead they may well have been making a statement – putting down their coats they may have been stating “there will be no more defense for this man” – there was no turning back.
• One Jewish commentator gives a different perspective. Noting that the Sudar had to be provided by the Court not the convict – he suggests that the potential sudar was being provided to Paul because Paul himself was the official who was being given the role to hold it.
• In either situation it is obvious that Paul was very much invoked in what was going on.
• Paul would have felt the contrast between the fury of the crowd and the peace of the victim.
• How much did Stephen’s reaction affect Paul?
• What might Paul have thought or read into Stephen’s reaction.
• Things seem to go wrong, but again as with Jesus, it is our reactions to bad things that make the best speeches.
• It is the way we handle conflict that helps others see the truth of the matter.
• It is better to win over an enemy that to beat them.
• Praying that God will give me the wisdom to react well.