The So-Called “Mistakes” in Stephen’s Sermon

APPENDIX N – THE SO-CALLED “MISTAKES” IN STEPHEN’S SERMON

Those who reject the inspiration, inerrancy, and accuracy of the Bible find much fodder in Stephen’s speech for fermenting and fomenting their censure of the Bible. Those who accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible may find difficulty in some supposed discrepancies. Obvious issues exist that need a biblical explanation, harmonization, and resolution. Other issues give evidence of unbelievers digging for minutiae where few Bible students would ever imagine any difficulty. Anglican commentator R. B. Rackham lists 15 such difficulties – others ten (Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History), seven (Longenecker, Acts), five (Koivisto, “Stephen’s Speech”), some more and some less.

1. The chronology of the call of Abraham. Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1
2. The timing of the death of Abraham’s father, Terah. Acts 7:4; Gen. 11:32
3. The years of slavery, 400 versus 430. Acts 7:6; Gen. 15:13-16; Exod. 12:40-41
4. Adding to Genesis 15:13-14, “serve me in this place”. Acts 7:7; cf. Gen. 15:16
5. The number of those who went to Egypt. Acts 7:14; Gen. 46:26-27
6. The place of burial of Abraham and his descendants. Acts 7:15-16; Joshua 24:32
7. The purchase of the burial grounds. Acts 7:16; Gen. 23:17-20, 33:19
8. The education of Moses. Acts 7:22; Exodus 4:10
9. Adding the age of Moses when he left Egypt. Acts 7:23
10. The reason that Moses fled Egypt. Acts 7:29; Exod. 2:14-15; Heb. 11:27
11. Horeb versus Sinai. Acts 7:30; Exodus 3:1
12. Worship of the host of heaven not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Acts 7:42
13. Chiun and star of your god versus star of Remphan. Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26
14. Babylon in Acts versus Damascus in Amos. Acts 7:43; Amos 5:27
15. Few murders of the prophets in the Old Testament. Acts 7:52; cf. Matt. 23:35-37
16. The law given by angels. Acts 7:53; Exodus 31:18

Numerous objections present themselves as perfidious quibbling. Stephen speaks the truth. Undoubtedly, he uses rhetorical devices such as summary and expansion, which is a natural part of discourse. Neither summation nor elaboration equal factual error.

Liberal interpreters of the Bible do not try to resolve the “problem passages,” because they do not believe the Bible is inerrant (without error). They instead assert that Stephen’s errors provide a valid reason to doubt and attack the inerrancy of the Bible.[1]  Those who hold inerrancy (or some measure of it) offer various resolutions. Some resolutions merely exchange one problem for another. Three common solutions posited by theologians and commentators (to explain the difficulties) are:

• Stephen made a mistake. In “…Luke’s record of Stephen’s apology…Inerrancy in this case would have primary reference to the fact that a speech of this substance was actually delivered on that occasion.” One must distinguish between the fact of what Stephen said and the accuracy/truth of what he said. [2] (Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 78)
• Stephen quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, rather than the Hebrew. “Stephen, or Luke, follows the Septuagint translation, as being then the best known…” Bengel’s Gnomon, p. 572)
• Stephen followed traditional Jewish teachings. “It is thus likely that Stephen is following a well-known tradition that his audience also knows…” (Bock, Acts, p. 284, see also pp. 282, 288, 306)

These resolutions, striking a mediating position between errancy and inerrancy, seem satisfactory to many contemporary Christians (removing any felt need to harmonize the difficult parts with the Old Testament). Nevertheless, regardless of their seeming propriety, each of them still affirms that Stephen makes numerous errors of fact in his address to the council. This manner of resolving the supposed mistakes of Stephen’s sermon relegates it to a mere historical record while removing its theology for beneficial instruction of the Lord’s people and churches.

However, Luke’s inspired use of Stephen’s address implies its faithfulness to the truth. Luke introduces Stephen as “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” “full of faith and power,” and whose face was “as it had been the face of an angel” (6:3, 5, 8, 15). Further, he concludes that Stephen was “full of the Holy Ghost” when he spoke (7:55). Finally, to charge Stephen with mistakes here is to question the prophecy and promise of Jesus. Jesus promised to give them the words to speak when delivered up to the synagogues, cast into prisons, and brought before kings and rulers. “It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” See Matthew 10:19-20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11-12; 21:12-15; John 14:26. Theologians often interpret the New Testament as if they (the theologians) know more than its authors and the early Christian believers. However, regarding Acts 7, is it not likely that Stephen was aware of things of which we are unaware?

Notes:

---

[1] In addition, Christian literature is filled with commentary that assert Luke invented a speech to put in Stephen’s mouth. For a discussion of this, see “The Speeches in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I, the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 402-427. Cadbury arrogantly asks, “May we leave unchallenged the natural assumption of a simple-minded modern reader that when Acts gives the words of Peter or Paul they are words really uttered by the apostles?”
[2] This suggestion means that in Acts, Luke records by inspiration without error a speech in which Stephen made an error or errors. Considered as a general possibility, such a theory is not unreasonable. For example, Moses records, “Ye shall not surely die.” The serpent lied. It is not truth to promote or live by, but Scripture records his words accurately and without error. However, in the Genesis 3 context, it is obvious that the author is accurately recording a false statement. In Acts 7, it is not.

As much an infidel...

The future of the new theology, or Modernism—call it what you will—is forcefully brought out by E. J. Poole-Connor in his Evangelicalism in England. He tells of a conversation between the editor of an agnostic magazine and a modernist minister. The editor told the minister that despite their different vocations they had much in common. “I don’t believe the Bible,” said the agnostic, “but neither do you. I don’t believe the story about creation, but you don’t either.”

“I don’t believe in the deity of Christ, nor His resurrection or ascension—I don’t believe any of those things, but neither do you. I am as much a Christian as you, and you are as much an infidel as I!”

From Spurgeon by Arnold Dallimore, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1985, p. 214 (As quoted by Doug Nichols) originally from Edward Joshua Poole-Connor, Evangelicalism in England, London: The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, 1951

Voltaire and the cottager

The path to bliss abounds with many a snare;
Learning is one, and wit, however rare.
The Frenchman, first in literary fame
(Mention him, if you please. Voltaire?—The same),
With spirit, genius, eloquence, supplied,
Lived long, wrote much, laugh’d heartily, and died;
The Scripture was his jest-book, whence he drew
Bon-mots to gall the Christian and the Jew;
An infidel in health, but what when sick?
Oh—then a text would touch him at the quick;
View him at Paris in his last career,
Surrounding throngs the demi-god revere;
Exalted on his pedestal of pride,
And fumed with frankincense on every side,
He begs their flattery with his latest breath,
And, smother’d in’t at last, is praised to death!

Yon cottager, who weaves at her own door,
Pillow and bobbins all her little store;
Content though mean, and cheerful if not gay,
Shuffling her threads about the live-long day,
Just earns a scanty pittance, and at night
Lies down secure, her heart and pocket light;
She, for her humble sphere by nature fit,
Has little understanding, and no wit,
Receives no praise; but though her lot be such
(Toilsome and indigent), she renders much;
Just knows, and knows no more, her Bible true—
A truth the brilliant Frenchman never knew;
And in that charter reads with sparkling eyes,
Her title to a treasure in the skies.
Oh, happy peasant! Oh, unhappy bard!
His the mere tinsel, hers the rich reward;
He praised perhaps for ages yet to come,
She never heard of half a mile from home:
He, lost in errors, his vain heart prefers,
She, safe in the simplicity of hers.

From the poem Truth by William Cowper