Stephanas (Hastings' Dictionary)

A Christian of Corinth, 1 Co J 16 igi5. 17. St. Paul mentions the household of Stephanas as one of the few exceptions to the practice which he had followed of not personally baptizing his converts. At the end of the Epistle the same household are spoken of as the first-fruits of Acliaia. They are said to have given them- selves to the ministry of the saints, and the Cor- inthians are exhorted to obey such persons and all who work and labour witli them.

From the next verse we gather that Stephanas himself was with St. Paul at Epiiesus at the time when the Epistle was written. In Clement of Rome's Epistle, ch. xlii., we are told that the apostles, ]iieacliing from city to city .and country to country, appointed their Jirst-Jruits, having tested them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those that should believe (KaBlcTavov rds avapxia avTujv . . ei'y iiTLffK^Trovi Kcd SiaKbvov^ twv fxiWuvTwi' TTiffTfcfii', Clem. Rom. i. 42).

It would be bcsi<le our purpose to discuss the exact meaning of this passage, but it may reasonably be held that Stephanas, and perhaps some members of his household, had been appointed to a position in the nascent church at Corinth, which implied on the one side ministry (SiaKovla), on the other side some recognition of their authority. If this was not a local ministry, in the later sense of the term, there were here the germs out of which it grew. A. C. Headlam. STEPHEN (2r^0a>'os), Ac 6-8-.

— Some dissatis- faction having been expressed by the Grecian Jews or Hellenists in the infant Church at Jeru- salem regarding the distribution of alms aiiioii^' their widows, seven brethren were chosen, and solemnlj' set apart by the apostles, to undertake the administration of the poor-table. Of the seven (.see Deacon), Stephen is the first named (Ac G"*), and the most distinguished, though in a sphere, strictly speaking, beyond his ollice, viz.

, as a preacher and a worker of miracles — characteristi- cally apostolic functions. Nothing is known of his conversion to Christianity, though Epiphanius {Ilwr. XX. 4) records that he was one of the Seventy. It is not certain that he was a Hellenist, though his Greek name, the fact that a committee 614 STEPHEN STEPHEN larjjc'ly Helk'nistic would probably be cbosen to deal witli the ^aiuvances of the jiarty, and to some extent his oi>inious, make the supi)Osition very probable.

His cliaracter and abilities as given in Ac li are of the hijjhest : ' a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit' (v.^ of. 7"), ' full of grace (AV faith) and power' (v.*), 'the wisdom and the Spirit by which lie spake' (v.'"); tf. also the qualilica- tions necessary for the othie (v.'), and St. Paul's words, 'Stephen thy witness' (22-'').

Stephen seems to have aroused the hostile notice of the Hellenistic synagogues (see below) by the wonders and signs which he wrought among the people {6"), but probably also by the substance and manner of his [ireaching ; in any case they challenged him to dis|iutation. But bis skill in maintaining his opinions was so irresistible, that his adversaries, discomtited in argument, rai.

sed the charge of blasphemy, procured witnesses to testify to it, and thus succeecfed in having him arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Here he was formally accused of speaking blasphemous words against the Temple and the Law, having said, as the false witnesses maintained, that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy ' this place,' and change the customs delivered by Moses. Stejihen was unperturbed by these accusations ; his face appeared to those present ' as the face of an angel ' (6'-*"'°).

Being asked by the high priest to answer to the charges, Stephen made a long speech, traversing the greater pa., ~{ the history of the chosen people, from the call of Abraham, tlirough Joseph and Moses, to David, and the building of the Temple by Solomon.

Towards the close he fearlessly turned to his judges, rebuked them as 'stitlhecked and uu- circumcised in heart and ears,' and as those who, carrying on the unholy work of the persecutors of the prophets, had become the betrayers and murderers of Him whom the prophets had foretold (-1-53) These words were the occasion of a furious outburst of wrath on the part of the assembly ; and when Stephen, undismayed, looked upwards, and declared that he saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God, the exasperated hearers violently rushed upon him, dragged him forth by one of the gates ol the city, and stoned him to death.

The witnesses (who according to Dt IT' had to take the lead in casting the stones) placed their garments in the keeping of a youn" man named Saul (cf. 22-") — the first historical mention of a great name. Among the last words of Stephen were, ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' and 'Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,' which are very similar to two of our Lord's sayings on the cross, Lk 23"'- '^.

In fact, the bearing of Stephen throughout — his courage, his calm, his patience, his gentleness — accords remarkably with the demeanour of his Master in like circumstances. The mutilated body was reverently interred by 'devout men' (7'^-8-). The vividness of the narrative hardly leaves room for tiie Bupposition that tlie stoninjj of Stephen was a lef,'al execution, i,e. one carried out with tlie sanction of the Roman authorities, or, indeed, that it was other than a murder.

But the Sanhe- diin may have been able to represent the whole incident as a mere tvunultuous outbreak, for which they could not officially be called to account A few other minor points require notice: (1) As to the number of synagogues implied in 6^, whether five, or three, or two, or only one (each number has hud its advocate amonf^ expositors), the Greek seems to support the view of VVendt, viz.

that two 8ynaf;o;rues are meant : (a) of the Libertines (Cyrenians and Alexandrians), and (6) of those from Asia and Cilicia. See LiuKKTlNES; Sanday. Expovitftr, viiL p. 827 (third series): also Winer-Moulton, Gvammar, \\ 160 note. (2) The date of Ihc martyrdom of Stephen can be determined only approximately : Bengel ^ves A. D. ao, Kwald A. D. 38, and ever>' intervening: year has had its supporter. Acts seems to place the event shortly before St.

Paul's conversion ; certainly nearer to that event than to the terminus a quo, the Crucifixion (say 20-30). Recent chronolo;;ists have somewhat narrowed the tennini of St. Pauls conversion : von Soden 31-35, Harnack 80, Ramsav .'l;l ; see OuRO.voLoaT Of NT, viL L p. 424 (C) and Table. (3) Who are the persons covered by the term 'devout men,' iv*,oii tl\tSiA (s-)'.' Hardly proselytes (Renan, Apostlrs, viii.) of either class, as St. Luke regularly uses wpoiriiXvroi and ^oM-^ui^o: (or vi^ou.

imi,<\ T«» Hio¥ for proselytes of the higher and the lower ran respec- tively, and elsewhere applies liXuSiCi to Jews (Lk 225, Ac 2^ 22'* RV), It is also unlikely that they were Christians, else we >hould have expected the designation to be ,tMt'/r;Ta. or aiikcoi. Jlost probably they were Jews who took a sympathetic interest in the fortunes of the Church, and who may have known and respected Stephen. Cf.

Joseph of Arimatha^a and Nicodcn ua (Jn 19 "*■ 39), and see KnowUng in Expositor's Greek Testtk- vxent, ii., ad loc. (4) Traditions about Stephen. According to an early tradition, the scene of the martyrdom was the open ground outside the Damascus Gate on the north ; but about the 15th cent, this gave place to the popular belief that it was on the east, where, accordingly, St. Stephen's Gate is now located (see Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, sniall ed. p. 61).

Another legend relates that, through the friendliness of Gamaliel, the body of Stephen was buried at Kafr Gamala, a day'e journey from Jerusalem, all the apostles being present. This story {>robably origin.ated after the so-called * Invention and Trans- ation of the Relics of St.

Stephen,' the chief details of which are that in the year 415 Gamaliel appeared in vision to Lucian, parish priest of Kafr Gamala, and indicated the resting-place of the remains of Stephen, which were then disinterred, carried to Jerusalem, and buried in the church of Mount Zion ; it was also said that the exhumation disclosed a tablet bearing the Aramaic name of Stephen, Kel'U (Syr. kelila, ' crown ' = rTt^a:»«). The Speech of Stephen.

— The historical narrative given by Stephen shows a considerable number of divergences from the OT account ; e.g. according to Ac 7-" Abraham receives his call before his migration to Haran, in Gn 12' while in Haran ; the giving of the Law is connected with angels in Ac 7', while Ex 19 has no mention of angels. ' Remphan ' in 7'" sliows that Stephen was quoting from the LXX ; the Hebrew has ' Chiun ' (Am 5-^) ; see Chiun. A full list of these variations is given by Farrar, St. Paul, small ed.

p. 92 note. The authenticity of the speech has been much canvassed ; e.g. Weizsiicker (and he is representa- tive of many more) regards the speech as a 'doctrinal exposition,' i.e. a later composition ; but see Acts, vol. i. p. 33 f . There has been an almost equal diversity of opinion regarding the purpose of the address.

Now, this very diversity seems a remarkably convincing proof of its substantial historicity ; a mere fabricator would surely have taken care to leave his readers in little doubt as to his 'tendency.' Was the speech completed? Was it intended as an answer to the charges made by the false witnesses? Or was it meant as a vindication, in whole or in part, of the opinions by which Stephen had originally provoked opposi- tion?

As to the first of these (juestions, it may be said that the speech has all the appearance of being complete ; the fact that Stephen did not proceed to recount the nation's story beyond the building of Solomon's temple is sufficiently ex- ]ilaincd if we remember that the legal and institu- tional status quo was traditionally held to have been but little altered subsequent to that event.

As to the second, it is certainly difficult to main- tain that the address is a counter-plea to the very dehnite charges of 6"-". It remains, then, to seek an answer to the question whether the speech was, .so to speak, a ple.a of Veritas, i.e. a re-declara- tion of what Stephen had .said against the Temple and the Law. If we answer affirmatively, the climax will be found in vv.-**-'", where it seems to be suggested that the building of the Temple w.

os an act contrary to God's will, a continuation of the contumacy that hiid fashioned the golden calf, and taken up the tabernacle of Molech (yv.'"""); while, if we answer negatively, the essential point will lie in vv."", where Stephen declares that (not he and his brethren, but) his hearers ami judges were the real violators of God's commands. The former view is usually adopted by those who regard Stephen as the hrst to discern that the gospel could not be confined within the bonds of .

ludaism, as, in fact, the forerunner of St. Paul. But it should be ob.served that if Stephen had spoken (as ihe false -n-itnesses said) a ainst tie STEPHEJf STOCKS 015 Temple, and had affirmed that Jesus would cliange the tustora>* of Moses, his adversaries would have been liis own < l.ristian brethren, whereas he was held in the hiyiiest repute by them.

Further, Buch words aa 'the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands' can hardlv be taken as implying any disparagement of the temple, since similar language was used by Solomon himself (1 K S-', 2 Ch 6''). Finally, Stephen speaks of the Law in terms of the highest res]>ect (T-"'**); and his references to the call of Abraham in Meso- potamia (v.-), to the Divine favour vouchsafed to Joseph and Moses in Egypt, and to the subsequent revelation accorded to the latter in Midian (v.

-"f), while they might be interpreted as signifying that the Divine purpose and blessing were not limited to the Holy Land, are rather to be under- stood in the light of the fact that Stephen repre- sents Canaan as the destination of the Chosen People from the first; the patriarchs are buried there (v.'") as in a country really their own ; and the sojourn in Egypt (still more the deportation to Babylon) is plainly regarded as a misfortune.

On the other band, if Stephen was at one with his opponents (as with his brethren) in their high appreciation of the Holy Land, the Law, and the Temple, how could the enlarge of blasphemy arise ? The witnesses might be false, but there must have been some colourable reason for an accusation so definite.

But it seems a quite satisfactory answer to this to say that Stephen had attacked the trailitional Law (as did Je-sus Himself, Mt 10'-" = Mk 7''^), which was freely held to have authority equal with the Mosaic, and that he may have urged, in the manner of Isaiah, that ' temple- trending' and external observances did not ensure acceptance with God.

It is quite conceivable that such teaching would be misunderstood, and even misrepresented as blasphemy against ' tlie law and this holy place,' or even against God (6"). On this view, then, the speech was not so much the advancing of a new theological position against an older ; its purpose was rather etliical and personal.

God had vouchsafed great privileges to the nation,, the land, an ordained leader (Moses), the Law, tht Tai^ernacle, and the Temple, — but they had been rendered of none ellcct by the people s con- tumacy and disobedience. Doubtless, as Spitta makes out, there is an unmistakable intention to draw or suggest a parallel between Moses and Jesus, ' the prophet whom the Lord will raise up unto you . .

like unto me' (7"), and the treat- ment accorded to each ; but this is meant to give point to the general theme of the speech, viz. that the members of the council, and all in league with them, had proved themselves to Ije only too truly the children of ungrateful and unworthy tord'ather? It is thus questionable how far wo fcre entitled to speak of Stephen as the forerunner of St. Paul.

Even if we accept Spitta's view that the erection of the Temple is represented by Stephen aa an unauthorized and presuniptuotis act, this is something very dillerent from St. Paul's conception of the national institutions as having had validity /or their own time. Certainlj' Si ephen never asserts the secondary and provisional char- acter of the Law, nor does he suggest the call of the I Jentiles — two of St. Paul's most characteristic tenets.

In short, Stephen seems to regard Chris- tianity (as did the apostles gt/.ierally) as the con- tinuation and development of the Divine purpose in the history of Israel ; St. Paul sees in it the begin- ning of a new order of things — another dispensation. LiTKRATUKK.— Farrar, St. Paul, ch. viii. ; Con^'bt-arc and How- ion, .vf, Paul, ch. ii. : Wcizsucker, Aposttihc Arte, L U-IT. ; l!'<;i(fert, Cfirigtianitt/ in the Apoglitlii: Afjf, 81-9;t ; Spitta, Aii'is'fiieicliichte, p. 105 ft.

; Kxpovitftr'ii Greek Testament, ii., R. J. Knowling, Actt; and commentariej) cited at Acth, vol t p. S6, on relevant chapters. A. GUIKVE. STEWARD occurs six times in AV of OT. It is used in Gn 15- of Eliezer, where for 'steward of my house ' RV rightly substitutes ' he that shall be possessor of my house ' (Heb. -n-s pB'^-ji. For the correct text and meaning of this verse see Kautzsch- Socin's Genesis, Comm. of Del. and DUlm. ad loc, and above all Ball's note in Haupt's OT). In Gn 4319 441.

4 -steward 'is tr° (both AV and RV) of vi'3 "7!; iK'K ' he who was over his (Joseph's) house.' The same tr° is given by RV in 4.'5"', wliere the Heb. is the same, but A v arbitrarily and incon- sistently gives 'ruler.' See art. Joseph, vol. iL p. 772". In 1 K IG'-" for AV ' steward of hif (Elah's) house' RV substitutes 'who was over <Ae house- hold' (n-;n). See art. Kl\t;, vol. ii. p. 843". The only remaining instance in AV is 1 Ch 28^ The Heb. is c'Tf, which RV tr. 'rulers.'

In Dn 1", where AV gives Mklzai: as a jirop. name, RV is perh. correct in translating 'the steward' (is^?? with the article shows at least that we have lieie some title, although its meaning is not certain). In NT 'steward' is tr" of iviTponoi in Mt 20 (the steward of the lord of the vineyard), Lk 8 (Herod's steward). This word occurs also in Gal 4' (AV ' tutors,' RV 'guardians') and twice in Apocr., 2 Mac IP 13- (AV ' protector,' RV 'guardian'). Elsewhere in NT it is the tr" of olKovop.

oi, which is used both literally and metaphorically, Lk 12^ l(ji.3.B (ti,g eogn. vb. oiKoiio/j.4ui occurs v.-, cf. 2 Mac 3'), 1 Co 41- -, Tit 1', 1 P 4'". In Gal 4- olKoubp.01. is coupled with (Trirpoiroi (see above), and is ti"" in AV 'governors,' RV 'stewards.' The former of these Gr. terms occurs also in Ro IG'^, where RV has 'treasurer' (cf. 1 Es 4'"'), AV 'chamberlain.' Stewardship (oiKofofiia) in lit. sense occurs in Lk l(jj. 3.

4 (^v and RV), and in metai)horical sense is substituted by RV for AV ' dis|jeiisalion ' in 1 Co 9". So RVm gives 'stewardship' in Eph 3^ Col 1-", 1 Ti 1* w here ' dispensation ' stamls in the text. J. A. SELBIE.