by Mike Benson

This would be his very last sermon. In a short time, Stephen's preaching career would come to an abrupt end -- as would his life. The Sanhedrin had heard all that it could stand. Its members found Stephen's message so offensive that they brutally murdered him. The "sword of the Spirit" (cf. Hebrews 4:12) had laid their hearts asunder (Acts 7:54), and in a frenzy of raw emotion the group forced the preacher outside of the city walls and then stoned him to death (Acts 7:60). J.W. McGarvey concludes this sad occasion by noting, "This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the faithful execution of the law, leaving their seats and rushing in a wild mob, amid hideous outcries, to the sudden execution of a prisoner uncondemned and untried."1/

One particular element of this tragic story is especially compelling. Stephen was literally on the threshold of eternity. His death was imminent. During those last desperate moments of his life, inspiration records that the veil of heaven was somehow opened before him and that he was permitted a glimpse into the court of heaven. "But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, 'Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!'" (Acts 7:55). A few observations on his passage are in order:

1. Note the Lord's POSITION. He was standing. Typically, Jesus is portrayed in Scripture as sitting (cf. Psalm 110:1; Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3) on heaven's throne. But in this passage, the Lord is fixed in an erect posture. Even though Stephen was about to "cross over Jordan," he was sustained by the image of the risen Lord standing -- as a witness, on his own behalf. "Stephen had been confessing Christ before men, and now he sees Christ confessing His servant before God. The proper posture for a witness is the standing posture. Stephen, condemned by an earthly court, appeals for vindication to a heavenly court, and his vindicator in that supreme court is Jesus, who stands at God's right hand as Stephen's advocate..."2/

2. Note the Lord's PROXIMITY. He was "at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56; cf. 5:31; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). The phrase suggests an exalted position of honor, power and majesty. "Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him" (1 Peter 3:22). Despite the fact that his servant lay dying, Jesus exercised his sovereign rule over this affair. He allowed Stephen to die a martyr's death in order to finally qualify him for the kingdom of heaven. And he allowed the hypocritical Sanhedrin a temporary triumph, but his righteous judgment would fall upon them in the end (cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:6; Romans 12:19).

Believers today can find great comfort in these sublime truths: a) Jesus is not passively unconcerned when we are dying. On the contrary, he metaphorically "rises to his feet" in silent testimony to our offerings of life-long devotion (cf. Romans 12:1,2) to him, and b) from his lofty place "at the right hand of God," the Lord is not only mindful of our suffering and distress, but he promises to render justice on those who have persecuted us (cf. Psalm 98:9; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:5-8; Revelation 16:7). And while we find no delight in the pain which our foes will experience, their punishment will mean our vindication and also demonstrate our identity as sons of God (cf. Galatians 3:26; 2 Thessalonians 1:4,5).

1/ J. W. McGarvey, "Stephen is Stoned, and the Church is Dispersed," New Commentary on Acts of the Apostles, p. 132. Cf. Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 15:32-36

2/F. F. Bruce, "Stephen's Defense," Commentary on the Book of Acts," p. 168

by Stan Mitchell

One of my elders used this familiar phrase Sunday -- you know the one. "Preacher, you quit preachin' and gone to meddlin'." It's a sad day when preaching meddles in our marriages, meddles in our work ethics, meddles in our use of money. Of course that elder was kidding. But I like the phrase because it says something important. There is an idea out there, not quite said but believed nonetheless, that preaching isn't supposed to actually demand lifestyle changes, commitment, or repentance.

It's not supposed to suggest that some actions are morally wrong, or that if there are true teachings there must be false teachings, too. It's not supposed to proclaim that there is a right way and a wrong way, or worse, that there is just one way, one truth, and one life (John 14:6). That's so exclusive! We need to include all kinds of lifestyles! "Talk about theology, or esoteric subjects like how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. But don't talk about the sin within the audience. Demand change in worship, but don't demand change in hearts. Criticize the church of Christ, but don't criticize the sin in the lives of those who hear. Point out hypocrisy in church leaders, but don't point it out in us!"

"Heaven has only one sermon -- repentance," says Charles Hodge, "Sinners cannot return to God with their sins. The good news begins with bad news! Peter's first command on Pentecost was 'repent' (Acts 2:38)." (Gospel Advocate, October, 2002).

Sometimes a sermon's intent is to inspire; sometimes its intent is to motivate; sometimes its intent is to comfort. And sometimes, beloved, its intent is to bring about repentance.

"In those days, John the Baptist came, preaching in the desert of Judea and saying, 'Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is near!'" (Matthew 3:1,2). So in a word, if it isn't meddling, it isn't preaching!

by Richard Mansel

We are faced with the dilemma of whether to listen to God's Word or ignore it. Some feel they can place feet in both fields and be found righteous. Why would we refuse to listen to Scripture? An illustration is helpful in answering this question.

Ben's father owns a business with an old friend, Theodore. Ben is told, "Take these tax papers straight over to Theodore's house and come right back home."

Will Ben do exactly as his father has commanded? Or will he choose to go to his girlfriend's house on the way there and to Sonic on his way home? He chooses to make the two additional stops and later when he returns home, his father is furious that it has taken him so long.

As Ben faces his father's anger, what are his options? First, he can apologize and admit his disobedience. Second, he can lie and say that traffic hindered him. Third, he can rationalize and justify his actions. He chooses the latter.

From Ben's perspective why did he choose the third option? He knew his father felt he had overstepped his bounds. Yet Ben had convinced himself that he had actually carried out his Dad's wishes. His father did not say he could not go to his girlfriend's house or to Sonic. But which came first in Ben's mind, his desire to do as he pleased or the rationalization? Of course, the desire came first. He knew what his father had told him to do. However, that contrasted with what he wanted to do. Therefore, he rationalized, hoping he could get what he wanted and his father's approval.

The fundamental question is, "was Ben deciding what to do based on his father's word or his own desires?" The latter won out. Ben loved his desires more than he loved the approval of his father.

Paul writes simply, "do not think beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6; cf. 2 John 9-11, NKJV). Therefore, we should have a hands off approach to its Words (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Jeremiah 26:2; Revelation 22:18,19).

Our attitudes about Scripture should be exemplified by the attitude of the Son and Spirit. In John 14:10 and John 16:13 we learn that Jesus and the Holy Spirit will not speak on their own authority. What right then do we have to act on our own initiative? The Psalmist writes, "Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). To even contemplate altering the words of God is futile.

In Jude 3 and 2 Timothy 3:16,17 we discover that the Bible is complete, and we have all we need. Peter assures us Scripture is sufficient ( 2 Peter 1:2-4). Since we have been given "all things that pertain to life and godliness," we have enough to "escape the corruption of the world" and "partake in His divine nature." Why do we need to wander in silence? If God has spoken, why do we need to go where his voice is not heard? If his Word is sufficient, why do we need to look elsewhere? The answer can only be that we feel the Bible is insufficient.

We read in 1 Corinthians 4:6 that the reason someone would want to "think beyond that which is written" is vanity. If we remember our illustration, Ben went outside of his father's command because it did not include the things he wanted to do. So we ask, is the thing that we desire worth more than our soul?

by J. Randal Matheny

"When our days there were ended, we left and proceeded on our journey; and all of them, with wives and children, escorted us outside the city. There we knelt down on the beach and prayed ..." (Acts 21:5, NRSV)

On his way to Jerusalem, Paul passed through Tyre, staying for only seven days. The disciples of that city gave them a warm send-off accompanying them with their entire families to outside the city, where the travelers boarded ship.

They shared a last prayer, which certainly included thanksgiving to God for their time together and for Paul and company's safety in Jerusalem. Tenderness and love prevailed during this moment, for seven days, as short as they were, built bonds of fraternity and friendship.

Let us remember and give thanks to God for his servants who have blessed us with their presence.

And proceed onward, as did they, with our journey toward the Last Day, when none will be separated ever again.

By Michael E. Brooks

"Then Moses said to God, 'Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' And God said to Moses, 'I am who I am.' And he said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, "I am has sent me to you"'" (Exodus 3:13,14).

The name of God has always been a subject of curiosity and sometimes controversy. Different languages use different words for divinity, such as "El" or "Elohim" in Hebrew, "Theos" in Greek, "Deos" in Latin, etc. Various gods are given personal names. Baal, Moloch, and Rimmon were gods worshipped by the nations surrounding Israel in Old Testament times. Krishna, Shiva, and Ganesh are deities of modern Hinduism. In a polytheistic society one cannot identify his god only by the generic term for deity; he must specify the exact one he wishes to address.

The third commandment is "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7). God attaches great significance to his name. He gave it to Moses in order that he might be correctly identified and known, and he protected it with a strict and ominous warning. The Jews took this commandment so seriously that they refused to even pronounce God's name, substituting "Adoni" ("The Lord") for "Yahweh" even when reading the Old Testament text aloud (a practice continued in most modern English translations –- for instance in Psalm 23 the original text says "Yahweh is my shepherd," but we read "The Lord is my Shepherd."

It is significant that the name of God is very like the Hebrew verb "to be" and that it is unmistakably connected with God's eternal existence in Exodus 3:14. God's name reflects at least a part of his unalterable nature. He is, he is the ultimate Being and the ground and cause of all other being. Without God there is no life, no existence. These truths are reflected and acknowledged whenever we speak or read his name.

I was made to reflect on these things recently by a rather trivial incident in Nepal. A group of Christians came to one of our workshops from the village of Badhurjahula. The name of the village means, "hanging monkey." Does that perhaps suggest a certain type of location for the village? Would you expect that name to be given to a neighborhood in a modern city? Badhurjahula lies within Chitwan National Park, the oldest of the parks in Nepal and home to many wild animals, including tigers, leopards, Asian rhinoceros, and, yes, lots and lots of monkeys. The name well describes and fits the village's location.

So our perception of God's identity and nature is enhanced by our knowing his name. He is eternal, all-powerful, ever-present. He Is! And He always will be! "Blessed be the Name of the Lord" (Psalm 113:2).