Allahabad Bible Seminary

Topic: Pauline Mission: Preparation and acquaintance with the Theology of Stephanites
and Hellenists
Submitted to: Dr. Menjiwapong Jamir Submitted on: 25.09.21
Submitted by: Lalhunthar Khawbung and Surendran P Class: B.D. Final Year

Introduction
Pauline mission was not of sudden conversion. Paul grew in the preparation and
acquaintance with the Theology of Stephanites and Hellenists. The Theology of Stephanites
and Hellenists were found in the book of Acts. In this paper we will be looking into language,
culture, and philosophy. The personality of Stephen, his speech, his character, were discussed
in this paper. The Theology of Stephanites and Hellenists were played important role in
preparation and acquaintance which paved much in Pauline mission. Before we look into
Stephen and his teaching and
1. Hellenists and Paul’s Preparation
1.1.Language
Paul was completely at home in the Greek language, which would only support the
presupposition of his Hellenistic background and education. Although he does not write literary
‘koine’, his style betrays a good Greek education. In fact, Greek was the language of commerce
and government in the eastern parts of the Roman empire. But although Paul’s style is
individual, recent studies prove beyond doubt that Paul knew and used the methods of the
Greek orators of his time. Even if Paul had not been trained as a professional rhetorician, his
mode of composition and expression often reveals the influence of Greek rhetoric. Again, and
again the structure of his letters conforms to models set forth by Quintilian and other ancient
rhetoricians. In dealings with his opponents in Second Corinthians he resorts to the types of
arguments and emotional appeals that we find in Socrates and in the whole Socratic tradition.
The apparent digressions that have puzzled commentators in such a letter as First Corinthians
had a definite and recognized rhetorical function. In defending his policy not to accept financial
support he argued like a Cynic philosopher. His writing sometimes reflects the Cynic-Stoic
diatribe (Rom 2:1-20; 3:1-9; 9:19; 1 Cor 9). His catalogues are similar to the catalogues of
vices and virtues put forth especially by Stoic philosophers (Gal 5:19-23). The content of his
ethical teaching may be Jewish, true-and-true, and the theological basis and motivation of it
are certainly Christian, but in persuading his hearers Paul often uses ‘commonplaces,’ i.e.
standard topics and examples to be found in Hellenistic philosophy, such as the athletic
metaphors (Phil 2:16).
1.2.Culture
Though it is easy enough to underestimate the influence of the Hellenistic culture on
Paul’s life and thought, it is not easy at all to define its extent. Indeed, the phenomenon of
‘Hellenisation’ was so extensive in Hellenistic Judaism (and even in the Judaism as practiced
in Palestine) that it is often difficult to segregate and label concepts as either Jewish or

1
Hellenistic. Whatever may have been the actual influence of Hellenism over his theological
thinking, we cannot deny the fact that he was born and sojourned in a Hellenistic city, a
crossroad of the Empire, a center of Greek learning, and that he was a citizen of Rome. These
factors would certainly have contributed to a universal vision, to his becoming par excellence
apostle to the Gentiles. In many ways, then Paul addressed the world of his times. He moved
Christianity from its Jewish roots to the Gentiles. This would lead to great struggle between
Christians of Jewish background and the Christians of Gentile background, an issue that we
will see recurring in his letters and recorded in Acts.1
1.3.Philosophy
As important as philosophy was to culture of Paul’s cities, it was centered on the
individual and gave little sense of community. To those alienated in the society – especially
the freed persons and salves, but even others who were uprooted from their native lands –
philosophy brought no sense of belonging or of salvation. Since the state religions were in
decline, some people turned toward magic, many others toward ‘mystery religions.’ These were
a way of getting control over life or to influence the powers who did have control. The Galatians
and Colossians were both tempted to such practices and Paul warns them: “whereas now that
you have come to recognise God -- or rather, be recognised by God -- how can you now turn
back again to those powerless and bankrupt elements whose slaves you now want to be all over
again?” (Gal 4:9). The people who were entering mystery religions or cults also yearned for a
saviour God, for acceptance by an intimate community. Here too, Paul met their needs,
preaching Jesus as the true saviour, stressing Christian life as a community in Christ with its
initiation by baptism and its sacred meal of the Eucharist. Still, Paul also had to encourage them
to ethical concerns beyond a feeling of salvation and to an open community without secrets. In
fact, this Hellenistic influence is detected more in Paul’s ethical teaching than in his theology
proper.2
We see hints of Paul’s contact with Greek philosophy in some of his writings. For
example, Paul, like the Platonists before him, wrote to the Romans that human reason is a way
of coming into contact with the absolute Good, but of course he gave that ‘good’ the name of
God: “For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain
to them. Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting
power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things. And so these
people have no excuse” (Rom 1:19-20). But Paul had also to temper the thought of the
Platonists. They were too pessimistic about the body and the material world. He wrote to the
Corinthians: “But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say
there is no resurrection of the dead? … What (the body) is sown is contemptible but what is
raised is glorious; what is sown is weak, but what is raised is powerful” (1 Cor 15:12, 43). The
Platonists were also too optimistic about self-knowledge. Paul wrote likewise to the
Corinthians: “Any one of you who thinks he is wise by worldly standards must learn to be a
fool in order to be really wise. For the wisdom of the world is folly to God” (1 Cor 3:18-19).

Walter Hansen, “The Preaching and Defence of Paul” in Marshall (ed), Witness to the Gospel, 310.
1

Joseph Fitzmyer, “Pauline Theology” in Raymond E. Brown et al (ed), The New Jerome Biblical
2

Commentary, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1990) 1382-1416.

2
Against Stoicism, Paul offered Christian insights into a personal God, into an eternal afterlife,
and into an active love of others rather than passive self-interest. But like Stoicism, Paul also
affirmed the mystery of Divine Providence and provided glimpses into the unity of the human
race and of all of creation. In Corinthians, we see that he especially liked the Stoic concern for
self-discipline in ethics: “Do you not realise that, though all the runners in the stadium take
part in the race, only one of them gets the prize? Run like that -- to win. Every athlete
concentrates completely on training, and this is to win a wreath that will wither, whereas ours
will never wither” (1 Cor 9:24-25). In Thessalonica Paul found something to affirm the
philosophy of the Epicureans, though, he had other purposes in mind: “… we do urge you,
brothers, to go on making even greater progress and to make a point of living quietly, attending
to your own business and earning your living, just as we told you to, so that you may earn the
respect of outsiders and not be dependent on anyone” (1 Th 4:10-12). Still, Paul warned the
Corinthians about Epicurean hedonism: “If the dead are not going to be raised, then Let us eat
and drink, for tomorrow we shall be dead. So do not let anyone lead you astray, 'Bad company
corrupts good ways” (1 Cor 15:33-34). Verse 33 of 1 Corinthian 15 may actually be a quotation
from Menander. 3
2. Hellenistic Jews
The Hellenistic Jews were more familiar with and accommodating to the gentile world,
and more universal in their outlook. They were less narrow culturally than the native
Palestinian Jews, and some at least were probably less rigid in their interpretation of the Law.
With this kind of background, Stephen and his colleague Philip were able to break through
cultural and religious barriers more easily than any of the twelve apostles would have been able
to do 4
3. Stephen’s Biography
Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew. He might have become a Christian by been one among
the 120 of Acts 1:15 or among the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost. He is
described not only as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (6:5; cf. 7:55), but as “full of
grace and power” and as having performed “great wonders and signs among the people” (6:8).
Stephen was a leader among the Hellenistic Jewish Christians of Jerusalem before his
ordination as one of the Seven. 5 Following the view of Abram Spiro, W. F. Albright and C.
S. Mann argue that Stephen was a Samaritan because he based his arguments on the Samaritan
Pentateuch.6 Stephen suffered the blasphemer’s penalty of death by stoning, but in death he
was vindicated by his vision of the glorified Son of Man. His death was not in vain: it was
followed quickly by the Gentile mission, led by likeminded Hellenistic Christians.7 Among the
people consenting to Stephen’s death that day was Saul, who later became the apostle Paul—

3
Ibid
4
Bromiley, Geoffrey W.: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1988; 2002, S. 4:615
5
Ibid
6
Pfeiffer, Charles F. ; Vos, Howard Frederic ; Rea, John: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia. Moody
Press, 1975; 2005
7
Ibid

3
great Christian missionary to the Gentiles. As he was being stoned, Stephen asked God not to
charge his executioners with the sin of his death (Acts 7:59–60).8
4. Role of Stephen
4.1.Stephen’s role as deacon (Acts 6).
The word “deacon” in Greek means “servant.” In Jerusalem the temple authorities
distributed food to the city’s needy, primarily widows and orphans. However, they soon cut
from their rolls those who followed Jesus. The church quickly organized its own distribution
system, relying on gifts of the better-off members to meet the needs of the destitute.
Jerusalem was a magnet to which Jews from all over the empire came, and many stayed
in the Holy City. The population included native, Aramaic-speaking Jews, and also a large
number of Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jews. Acts 6 tells us that the Hellenists began to
complain that their widows were not getting their fair share when food was distributed, and
hard feelings developed. The apostles recommended that the congregation choose six godly
men filled with the Holy Spirit whom they could trust to be fair, and turn the distribution over
to these deacons. The elected men would serve the church by tending to the details of collecting
money, buying food, and seeing that it was distributed fairly.
Acts 6 lists the six men chosen. Strikingly, the church chose six men with Hellenistic
names, displaying trust that those who felt they had been treated unfairly would themselves be
totally fair! Stephen was one of these six godly, Spirit-filled men the whole church knew they
could trust.
4.2.Stephen’s role as evangelist (Acts 6; 7).
Stephen was a bold evangelist, “full of faith and power,” whose words were supported
by “great wonders and signs among the people” (6:8). He focused on reaching others of
Hellenistic heritage, and in the process, he debated fanatical Jews from a Hellenistic synagogue
(6:9). When they were unable to refute his preaching, they lined up false witnesses and accused
him of religious crimes.
When taken before the Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus to death, Stephen preached
boldly, showing from history that Israel had consistently resisted rather than responded to God.
He argued that in their crucifixion of Christ they, too, “always resist the Holy Spirit” (7:51).
The accusation, with Stephen’s report of a sudden vision of Christ standing at the right hand of
God, turned the council into a mob that dragged Stephen into the streets and stoned him to
death. With his last breath, Stephen prayed that God would “not charge them with this sin.”9
5. Personality of Stephen
5.1.Stephen was a man of faith.
It is twice noticed that he was “full of faith”—an expression which may be taken to
mean: 1. That he was unusually open and receptive to the Christian truth and grace; for some

8
Youngblood, Ronald F. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's New
Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995
9
Richards, Larry: Every Man in the Bible. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1999, S. 207

4
manuscripts read, “full of grace.” 2. Or that he was unusually zealous and active in proclaiming
Christ. Faith is sometimes the equivalent of piety, sometimes of activity. The man of faith is,
from one point of view, the man of piety; from another point of view he is the man of activity,
who readily overcomes hindrances, and, relying on Divine help, goes on in his work,
consecrating himself wholly to it. Faith is too often thought of as a cherished sentiment; it is
for Christians the inspiration of practical life and duty. They should be earnest in service, and
find the earnestness maintained by their trust. Faith evidently kept very near to Stephen the
vision of the exalted and living Christ.
5.2.Stephen as a man of power.
This was shown in (1) the influence of his personal character; (2) in his indomitable
energy and perseverance; (3) in his stores of scriptural knowledge; (4) in his intellectual gifts;
(5) in his unanswerable arguments; (6) in his ability to add miraculous attestations. Men could
not resist the “wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.”
5.3.Stephen as a man moved by the Holy Ghost.
Not simply endowed with intellectual gifts, but under special constrainings of the Holy
Ghost; called to a special work, and suitably enriched and inspired for that work. Where there
is a full consecration of heart, and an entire openness of life, there the Holy Spirit will come,
making the man his agent, and assuring to his labours full success.
5.4.Stephen as courageous man
Only gradually did the true relations between Judaism and Christianity dawn upon the
apostles. But Stephen saw them, and boldly announced them, putting them on men’s thoughts,
if he might not win for them a present acceptance. Perhaps, as a Hellenist, he had not so great
prejudices to overcome as had the Palestinian Jews. Stephen paid the penalty which usually
comes to those whose thoughts and teachings are in advance of their age. His enemies were
quite right. From their point of view he was a most dangerous man—no one of the Christian
band was so dangerous. But he was one of the noblest of men. He is a sublime example. His
brief life is an abiding witness. Being dead, he speaks with a martyr’s voice, bidding us do
noble things for Christ, and trust him to give us strength for the doing.10
6. The Speech of Stephen
Stephen summarized Old Testament teachings, showing how God had guided Israel
toward a specific goal. He reviewed Israel’s history in such a way that he replied to all the
charges made against him without actually denying anything. This amounted to a criticism of
the Sanhedrin itself. Stephen denounced the council as “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart
and ears” and accused them of resisting the Holy Spirit. Then he charged that they had killed
Christ, just as their ancestors had killed the prophets. He accused them of failing to keep their

10
Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Hrsg.): The Pulpit Commentary: Acts of the Apostles Vol. I. Bellingham,
WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004, S. 211

5
own law (Acts 7:51–53).11 The speech concentrates on three phases of Israelite history: the
Patriarchal Age, Moses and the wilderness wanderings, the tabernacle and the temple.
6.1.First Phase-The Patriarchal Age
In the Patriarchal Age God revealed Himself to Abraham in Mesopotamia, and was
with Joseph in Egypt. The Patriarchs were pilgrims, possessing not a square foot of land,
always on the move at the call of God, yet never deprived of His presence. Even in the
Patriarchal Age, however, opposition to God’s appointed man was evident in Joseph’s
persecution by his brothers; but Joseph was ultimately vindicated in their sight (Acts 7:2–16).12
6.2.Second Phase-Moses and the wilderness wanderings
Moses too was rejected by his people when he attempted to protect them, but he also
was vindicated. He received a revelation from God—not in the Holy Land but in the wilderness
of Sinai—and returned to Egypt to deliver his people from bondage. Even then he was
repudiated by them, although he was God’s prophet and lawgiver to them, a predecessor in this
respect of Christ Himself. Their rejection of Moses was therefore a rejection of God, as
their worship of the golden calf foreshadowed their subsequent idolatrous course (vv. 17–43).
These descendants, shown themselves to be of the same mind as their ancestors by their
rejection of Christ.13
6.3.Third Phase- The tabernacle and the temple
The mobile tent shrine of wilderness days was a more suitable sanctuary for a pilgrim
people than the more permanent structure built by Solomon. A fixed temple like Solomon’s
tempted them to imagine that God was always at their disposal in that place. But now He was
calling them to leave the supposed security of their traditional cult and go forth where He might
lead (vv. 44–50).14
Israel systematically rebelled against the call of its inspired leaders (vv. 9-43) and was
too prone to isolate the presence and activity of God to local places such as the Temple rather
than see God in crucial historical events such as the recent case of Jesus’ exaltation in Jerusalem
(vv. 44-53). Once again, Israel was in danger of misperceiving a new expression of God’s
activity.15
The charges of blasphemy came fittingly indeed from the descendants of those who
blasphemed God by worshiping idols and blasphemed Moses by repudiating his divinely
appointed leadership. The whole speech is a magnificent sample of early Hellenistic Christian
apologetic. Stephen was critical of the system of Old Testament laws, claiming they had

11
Youngblood, Ronald F. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's New
Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995
12
Pfeiffer, Charles F. ; Vos, Howard Frederic ; Rea, John: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia. Moody
Press, 1975; 2005
13
Ibid
14
Ibid
15
Achtemeier, Paul J. ; Harper & Row, Publishers ; Society of Biblical Literature: Harper's Bible
Dictionary. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, 1985, S. 992

6
already lost their effectiveness because they had reached fulfillment in Christ. This viewpoint,
which Stephen argued very skillfully, brought him into conflict with powerful leaders among
the Jewish people. Stephen became well-known as a preacher and a miracle-worker (Acts 6:8).
His work was so effective that renewed persecution of the Christians broke out.16
Stephen suffered the blasphemer’s penalty of death by stoning, but in death he was
vindicated by his vision of the glorified Son of Man. His death was not in vain: it was followed
quickly by the Gentile mission, led by likeminded Hellenistic Christians. His teaching
continued to bear fruit; echoes of it were heard in the next generation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.17
7. Theology of Stephanites:
7.1.Pneumatology
Donald Guthrie observes, the church comes into being through the baptism of the spirit
(Acts 2:38). Fullness of the Spirit is the evidence of true Christianity (Acts 2:4; 6:3; 8:17; 10:44;
19:6). Both Stephen and Saul see a heavenly vision of Jesus (Acts 7:55; 9:5). It was the Spirit
who directed the mission work of the primitive church, example the Antiochene church (Acts
13:2). 18
Finny Philip observes, the early development of Paul’s Theology from the theology of
Stephanites. Finny further says, the point of contact for Paul and Stephen is the Synagogues in
Jerusalem. The Stephen’s pneumatic activities like signs and wonders, his charismatic wisdom,
charismatic preaching and vision were inputs to Paul’s theology.
For H. Gunkel, the pre-Pauline pneumatology, along with the primitive Christians
traced certain types of experience to the Spirit, wisdom (Acts 6:3). Gunkel placed Pauline
Pneumatology within these popular notions of the Spirit. He believed that Paul was aware of
the ideas concerning Spirt which were prevalent in the churches. For him, Paul worked out his
pneumatology in contrast to the primitive Christian view.
For Eduard Schweizer, the primitive Christian community failed to answer the
question of how the imparting of the Spirit was connected with the coming, the life, the
suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. The real problem for the early church was the
relationship between the message of the Spirit and that of the crucified, risen and coming Lord.
According to Schweizer, the Hellenistic community gave a radical answer to this problem. The
possibility of this interpretation arose from the fact that a Hellenist could think of power only
in the form of a substance. According to Schweizer, Paul's pneumatology was largely the result
of the Hellenistic context in which Paul found himself, while he tried to get away from this.
For this reason, Schweizer finds it difficult to disentangle Paul from the above two strands. 19
From this only Stephen’s theology took shape and thereof Paul’s theology.

16
Youngblood, Ronald F. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's New
Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995
17
Pfeiffer, Charles F. ; Vos, Howard Frederic ; Rea, John: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia… 2005.
18
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990), 366.
19
Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),
140-159.

7
 7.2.Koinonia
Raymond E Brown pointed out, the cultural and theological disagreements that existed
in Jerusalem between the Hebrews and the Hellenists were implicitly being judged as less
important that their common belief in Jesus. Stephen and most believers in Jesus decided that
it was better to tolerate certain differences of practice and thought rather that to destroy a
koinonia based on Christology. 20 Paul also takes much step to maintain the fellowship.
Example Philippians 1:5 …. Fellowship in the gospel…., and not at the cost of idolatry 1
Corinthians 10:16, 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul writes about, fellowship of the Holy Spirit, “In
Christ” in Paul’s theology unifying Christians, it spread to the ends of the earth.
7.3.Egalitarian
The dispute between “the Hellenist” and “the Hebrews” referred to in Acts 6:1 was not
between Gentiles and Jews, but between Greek-speaking Jews (thus Hellenistai is used rather
than Hellenes, “Greeks”) and Aramaic Hebrew-speaking Jews 21 The seven deacons appointed
to supervise the daily distribution of charity to the widows and other poor members of the
church and to ensure that there was no unfairness in the allocation between the Hellenists and
Hebrews among the recipients. 22 Stephanites look after the distribution of assistance to the
widows of the church, so that the apostles themselves should be free for their spiritual tasks 23
Later Paul used this kind of equality which can be seen in Galatians 3:28. “There is no longer
Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you
are one in Christ Jesus.”
7.4.God dwells everywhere – (Omnipresent)
Moses encountered God in the episode of the burning bush in a sacred ―place‖ that
was also situated in the desert (Acts 7:33; cf. Exodus 3:5). Therefore, there is no unique ―Holy
Place; God dwells everywhere (cf. Mal 1:11). Stephen ventured further still; relying on a
citation from Isa 66:1–2, he asserted that God does not inhabit dwellings made by human hands
(Acts 7:48–50). In this way, the Jerusalem temple was demythologized. Christians were no
longer constrained to participate in the worship which took place in the Temple; they could, in
this regard, part company with Judaism.24
7.5.Missiological
Stephen gave his life to defend the ideal of the Hellenists, according to which
Christianity could not develop except by separating from Judaism and by putting distance
between itself and the Mosaic law and the Jerusalem Temple. This is the principle which Paul,
having become a Christian after he had persecuted the Church, would defend with tenacity

20
Reymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Bangalore, Theological Publications in
India: 2014), 294.
21
Bromiley, Geoffrey W.: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1988; 2002, S. 4:615
22
Pfeiffer, Charles F.; Vos, Howard Frederic; Rea, John: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia…, 2005
23
Wood, D. R. W.: New Bible Dictionary. InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962, S. 1133
24
M. E. Boismard, “Stephen” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary ed. by David Noel Freedman, (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), Vol.6 207-210.

8
(Galatians 1–2). We might say, then, that Stephen was the precursor of the apostle to the
gentiles.25
The implications of the speech are vital. God is free to move beyond the national/religious
boundaries of Judaism. The exclusivistic outlook of Judaism is artificial. God’s work is
dynamic. And if Stephen’s conclusions are correct, the Jewish church ought to be free to take
the gospel beyond Judea.26
8. Paul’s preparation in Stephen’s theology
The Sadducees had a historical connection with Hellenism and that the Pharisees, by
contrast, found little to commend in the rational temperament of the Sadducees. The false
charges made against Stephen, as well as the style of Stephen’s defense, reflect Judeo-
Pharisaical thought much more than Hellenistic thought. Stephen vehemently denies
speaking against the law, and in so doing he places himself against the Sanhedrin and the
rational mode of the Hellenists.
B. S. Easton observes, Stephen stresses that Palestine is God’s Holy Land Moses is
glorified; so marvelous a ‘ruler and judge’ is he that ‘like unto Moses’ is a title reserved for
Jesus alone, while Moses’ law is no less than ‘living oracles,’ delivered by angels (7:53). Moses
was the type of Jesus, for the Jews had continually rejected Moses; in 7:51-53 Stephen unmasks
his batteries; the Jews of old rejected Moses, those of Stephen’s day rejected Moses’ successor.
If Moses’ law was broken, not Stephen but members of the Sanhedrin had broken it. Thus, Saul
who "approved of his murder" (Acts 8:1) was in a dilemma. As a fierce Hebrew he had rejected
all attempts by the Hellenists and the Sanhedrin to downgrade the law. Stephen was counted
among the Hellenists, and yet in his defense he took a position that was between that of the
Hellenists and Pharisees with regard to the law. Stephen became a victim of the fabrications of
traditional Judaism. He built his apologetic on a Judaistic base and members of the Sanhedrin
themselves were caught in the charge. He further says, to the extent that Saul as a Pharisee
realized this, so to this extent his support would have been with Stephen. While the impact
of this and of the particular role of Gamaliel may not have been consciously manifest to Paul
at the time, such factors cannot be disregarded in considering the kinds of forces that work on
a man’s conscience.27 The accusations brought against Stephen are clearly reminiscent of those
brought against Jesus and Paul at their respective trials.28
8.1. Stephen View on Law and Temple
It seems certain that Stephen came to his convictions through the stimulus of some of
Jesus’ sayings, known to him through oral tradition. (This seems much more likely than M.
Simon’s speculation that Stephen’s negative view of the temple derived from Samaritan

25
Ibid
26
Elwell, Walter A. ; Beitzel, Barry J.: Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker
Book House, 1988, S. 2000
27
Dean S. Gilliland, Pauline Theology and Mission Practice (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983), 79-
80.
28
Freedman, David Noel ; Myers, Allen C. ; Beck, Astrid B.: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.
Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 2000

9
influence.) Regarding the temple and its destruction (6:13f), therefore, Stephen probably had
in mind Jesus’ saying recorded in Mk. 13:2 (par Mt. 24:2; Lk. 21:6; cf. also Jn. 2:19; Mt. 12:6).
Jesus’ anticipation of the imminent demise of the temple opened the door to rethinking its
significance, especially in the light of His atoning death. Similarly, Stephen must have been
aware of Jesus’ words and deeds that taught a new freedom concerning the Law (e.g., Mk.
2:27; 7:15; cf. 10:4f; Mt. 8:22). While it is improbable that Stephen went as far in articulating
this newness as Paul was later to do, he probably had begun to explore (in a more radical way
than M. Simon allows) the implications of what Jesus had said and done.
According to Hengel that some of the Hellenistic Jews were attracted by Jesus’ teaching
because their high idealism had been offended by the actual practices they encountered in
connection with the temple and the Judaism of Palestine. Stephen may also have foreseen the
appeal of these new emphases to many Diaspora Jews and hence the potential success of the
gospel among them if not the possibility of preaching this gospel even among the Gentiles.29
8.2. Courage
With a Moses-like glow on his face, the books of Moses solidly in his head and heart,
the courage of Moses before Pharaoh, and the fullness of the indwelling power of the Holy
Spirit of God, Stephen courageously answered his accusers.30 Same courage Paul also had,
since he witnessed the courage of Stephen, in later days ministry he too was courage in his
trails before religious leaders and Roman authorities.
Conclusion and Reflection
Stephen summarized Old Testament teachings, showing how God had guided Israel toward a
specific goal. The Hellenists language, culture, and philosophy paved way to understand the
gospel. The Hellenistic Jews were more accommodation to the gentile world in which Stephen
was brought up. Stephen role was both deacon and evangelist or in other words both
community organizer and charismatic wanderer. He had a great personality such as faith, man
of power, moved by the Holy Spirit and courageous man. The Speech of Stephen shows his in-
depth knowledge in Scripture. The theology of Stephanites influenced Paul, thus we can find
many Stephen theology in Paul’s theology.
Today’s context: The mission needs such legacy of faith, courage like Stephen and impact and
pull on the intellectuals like Paul to the mission. And taking gospel in considering language,
culture, and Scripture etc.,
There are lot of differences in mission but we need to have a broad mind and always include
and centered with the Christology like we saw in Stephen case.

29
Bromiley, Geoffrey W.: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1988; 2002, S. 4:616
30
Barton, Bruce B. ; Osborne, Grant R.: Acts. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House, 1999 Life Application
Bible Commentary, S. 103

10
In India there are lot of persecution going on, many are converted in Gharwapsi. Mission need
to have courageous missionaries and evangelists as the frontliners. And for sure Holy Spirit
will change the persecutors into proclaimer.
Stephen was allrounder as well as Paul. They did ministry to strengthen the Church and also in
the mission. Mission mandate must focus on the spiritual wisdom for the missionaries.
We need plan and strategies but should ready to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit and
available to led by Holy Spirit.
Speech of Stephen and later Paul, encourages the missionaries, that they should be well versed
with the culture, language, scripture knowledge. Etc.,
Egalitarian responsibility of Stephen and followed by Paul in his articulation are good example
to implement in mission among marginalized group in India.

11
Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J. ; Harper & Row, Publishers ; Society of Biblical Literature: Harper's
Bible Dictionary. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, 1985.
Barton, Bruce B. ; Osborne, Grant R.: Acts. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House, 1999 Life
Application Bible Commentary.
Boismard, M. E. “Stephen” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary ed. by David Noel Freedman. New
York: Doubleday, 1992. Vol.6.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W.: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1988; 2002.
Brown, Reymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament, Bangalore, Theological
Publications in India: 2014.
Elwell, Walter A. ; Beitzel, Barry J.: Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich. :
Baker Book House, 1988.
Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. “Pauline Theology” in Raymond E. Brown et al (ed), The New Jerome
Biblical Commentary. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1990.
Freedman, David Noel ; Myers, Allen C. ; Beck, Astrid B.: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.
Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 2000
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1988; 2002.
Gilliland, Dean S. Pauline Theology and Mission Practice Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990.
Hansen, Walter. “The Preaching and Defence of Paul” in Marshall (ed), Witness to the Gospel.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. ; Vos, Howard Frederic ; Rea, John: The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia.
Moody Press, 1975; 2005.
Richards, Larry: Every Man in the Bible. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1999.
Ronald F. Youngblood,. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's
New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995
Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Hrsg.): The Pulpit Commentary: Acts of the Apostles Vol. I.
Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.
Wood, D. R. W.: New Bible Dictionary. InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962.
Youngblood, Ronald F. ; Bruce, F. F. ; Harrison, R. K. ; Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's
New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville : T. Nelson, 1995.
12