Stephen and Saul – Acts 7:54 – 8:3

Let’s picture the birth of twin boys – they are fraternal twins, not identical twins.

But obviously they have the same parents and the same privileges.

They have the same honorable grandparents and great-grandparents.

They go to the same schools and are even in the same classes, because they are the same age.

They go to the same Sunday School and sit together in church.

Other than the fact that they don’t look alike, they are alike in many ways.

BUT one grows up to be a worldly profligate, rejecting the godly example and education of his parents.

He isn’t exactly immoral, but he doesn’t have the same values as his parents.

He marries several times, and becomes a wealthy and powerful man living a long and happy life.

The other is saved as a teenager by the grace of God, and the world begins to see the Lord in him.

God blesses him, but his life isn’t quite as smooth and prosperous as his brothers’.

He marries, and has a ton of kids, and he makes enough money to be considered upper-middle class,

But there are plenty of trials and troubles in his life.

He experiences difficulties that his brother doesn’t because there is a struggle in his heart between the things of God and the things of the world.

What makes these two boys different?

The answer is: THE GRACE OF GOD.

One of the boys is named “Jacob” and the other “Esau.”

“As it is written, [in Romans 9 and elsewhere] Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

Now, let’s shift our attention to another pair of twins: Okay, they aren’t exactly twins.

Let’s think once again about Stephen and his executioner Saul.

I sincerely hope that you don’t get tired of Stephen before I do.

I thought about introducing this message with comments about “beating a dead horse,”

But Stephen isn’t dead, so the cliche doesn’t really apply.

If you’ll bear with me for another message about this great man of God,

I think that you’ll be blessed as we compare him to Saul.

After just a few minutes thought, I came up with about a dozen points of comparison and contrast.

For example, they come from very SIMILAR BACKGROUNDS.

You might say that they were twins, having the same KIND of parents.

Remember that Stephen was elected to be a deacon because the church was in need of help ministering to the Grecian widows.

“Stephen” may be a Biblical name, but it is not an Hebrew name.

The man was probably a Grecian – a Jew who was born into a family with a lot of Greek culture.

In fact he was probably born outside the country; Crete, Cyprus or maybe Cilicia

Saul, whom we know changed his name later to “Paul,” and who became a special Apostle,

Was born outside of Judea, in the Roman colony of Cilicia.

Paul, passionately called himself a “Pharisee of the Pharisees,” but he was nevertheless, a Grecian.

He spoke Greek and apparently Latin;

He was familiar with Greek poetry and could quote it from memory.

And he migrated to Jerusalem in order to strengthen his Hebrew roots and education, perhaps like Stephen

Saul studied under the famous Gamaliel, whom we looked at several months ago.

And both men were highly RELIGIOUS.

The difference between them was that Saul was religious and superstitious,

While Stephen was religious and spiritually-minded.

I don’t know about you, but I always try to be careful when I use the word “religious.”

In some circumstances it is a bad word and in others it’s good.

In my dictionary the first definition is: “Having or showing belief in, and reverence for, God or a deity.”

That is a good thing, depending of course on the God towards Whom we have reverence.

The third definition is: “Extremely scrupulous or conscientious.”

Again, this is not necessarily such a good thing.

Was Saul religious?

In criticizing himself in Philippians 3 he said, “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”

Then in the next verse he said, but these things are useless empty husks that I have tossed aside so that I might know and enjoy Christ Jesus the Saviour.

Was Stephen religious?

A person cannot be any more religious than the man who is filled with the Spirit of God.

He was a servant in the Lord’s church, a servant to the needy and a servant to the Lord.

And the root of his servanthood was love for the Lord.

James 1:27 says, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

And both men’s religions manifested themselves in the way that they lived their lives.

Saul’s religion could be characterized by the word “self-righteousness.”

I’m pretty sure that if you asked him about it, he would have said that self-righteousness is good.

But that was before he knew about the Lord’s righteousness.

Later he wrote – “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

There were a multitude of religious things which could be seen in Paul’s life.

He rigidly followed the letter of Moses law as he perceived it.

But later in his life he described himself as “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious.”

These three things came directly out of his corrupt religion.

But I guarantee that he didn’t think of himself as a blasphemer in Acts 7 or 8.

Have you thought about what verse 58 illustrates?

“And [they] cast {Stephen] out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.”

In Leviticus 24 a wicked, filthy-mouthed, blasphemer was brought before Moses,

Verse 13 says, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.”

In his religious zeal Saul was convinced that Stephen was the blasphemer, talking about Lord Jesus.

Saul thought that he was obeying the precepts of Deuteronomy 13:6-11.

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.”

Saul initially thought that Stephen was the blasphemer,

But as he confesses in I Timothy 1, actually it was just the opposite.

The Apostle John wrote: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

What does Acts 7:58 tell us?

It may be saying that Saul, as a witness of Stephen’s blasphemy, actually put his hand on Stephen’s head, much like the Judas kiss.

And then the executioners, to keep their outer clothes from getting bloody, gave them to Saul, as the over-seer of this grizzly work.

All in the name of religion.

Comparing the character of both men we can see some similarities.

I think that we can say that both Stephen and Saul were zealous, fearless, and completely sincere.

Verse 1 says, “And Saul was consenting unto his death.”

The word “consenting” is “suneudokeo” ( soon-yoo-dok-eh’-o ) and is translated “consent unto, be pleased with, allow,” and “to have pleasure in something.”

This is the same word that Paul uses to describe the wicked in Romans 1 – “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Chapter 9 describes Saul as “breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.”

He was definitely excited about his work of stopping the spread of what he perceived as a Satanic cult.

But was Stephen any less zealous than Saul, any less sincere?

There were twins, born out of the same religious womb,

But one was touched by the grace of God and the other was not.

Stephen “earnestly contended for the faith which was once delievered unto the saints.”

Saul earnestly contended for the misunderstood and misapplied law of the Pharisees.

Fortunately, the methods for their two contentions were entirely different.

For the child of God “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.”

But for Saul, who had no other kind of weapon to fight against the Spirit of God, turned to the sword, and rocks and letters from the priests so that he could hale both men and women into prison.

As a result Stephen was a blessing to the church and Saul was just the opposite.

“As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”

But, God can make even the wrath of man to praise Him.

“As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”

When all was said and done, both men were ultimately used to bless the church and the kingdom.

Despite Saul’s efforts to destroy the Lord’s church beginning with Stephen,

He actually helped it, by pushing it’s members into self-sacrifice and obedience.

Let me give you some OTHER SIMILARITIES between Saul and Stephen.

Verse 58 says that Saul was consenting unto Stephen’s death.

Isn’t there a sense in which Stephen was also consenting unto his death?

Don’t we read between the lines that Stephen had a desire to serve and glorify the Lord, even if it meant his own death?

“Not my will, but thine be done Lord.”

Oh, that we all had this kind of attitude.

And look at Saul after Stephen’s death.

Am I reading too much into these words: “And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.”

Doesn’t this verse imply that Saul and his executioners dragged Stephen out into the potter’s field,

Showered him with stones until nearly every bone in his body was broken, blood was poring from three dozen wounds, and there was no breath in his lungs,

And then they just walked away, leaving the body to rot or to be eaten by vermin and birds?

But as soon as some of the church members found out, they were out there to collect the remains and give him a proper burial?

Do I see that Saul cared nothing for the body of Stephen?

But do I not also see that Stephen cared nothing for his body?

“Lord, into thy hands, I commit my spirit.”

“Lord I don’t need this old thing any longer, I’m coming home.”

Here is something else which we find: eventually, heaven was opened to both of them.

Stephen said, “Look, I see my Saviour.”

In one more chapter, we are going to find Saul looking up into the brilliance of the shekinah glory of God.

There is a very troublesome verse in Galatians 6 which has always scared me just a little bit.

When was the last time that you considered Galatians 6:7?

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Here we see Saul, consenting, overseeing and fully enjoying the stoning of Stephen.

And Acts 14:19 we read “And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.’

Both Stephen and Saul were stoned, and I might add “stoned to death.”

Is there any relationship between Saul’s stoning of Stephen and his own stoning as a fulfilment of Galatians 6:7?

Saul did not die, however.

We aren’t exactly sure how Saul came to breathe his last breath.

But for what it’s worth, I can tell you what ISBE and tradition say:

“The tradition is, for now Paul fails us, that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was behead on the Ostian Road just outside of Rome.

Nero died June 68 AD, so that Paul was executed before that date, perhaps in the late spring of that year (or 67).

Perhaps Luke and Timothy were with him.”

Of course, I have no right to say this, but my heart yearns to tell you that

When Paul leaned over and bared his neck to the Roman execution, he said,

“Lord Jesus, into thy hands, I commit my spirit.”

And then he cried with a loud voice, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Stephen’s words echoed in his heart from the end of Acts 7 to the very day of Saul’s death.

As I think about Saul and Stephen, I see JACOB AND ESAU with a special twist.

I see twins, in so many ways.

But here is the most important similarity between Stephen and Saul.

And also, here we leave any parallel with Jacob and Esau.

Stephen was saved by the grace of God.

We don’t know anything about the details.

Was he saved during the ministry of the Lord Jesus?

As he one of the 70 preachers, or was he one of the 120?

Was he baptized by John or by the disciples on the day of Pentecost, or before?

Perhaps some day we’ll know a little about these things.

But what is really important is that we are sure of Stephen’s salvation.

But we also know that Saul was saved by grace as well.

And the details of his conversion are given to us in great lengths more than once.

So Stephen may have entered the strait gate before Saul, and he reached the Celestial City much earlier,

But Saul, the chiefest of sinners, was saved by the grace of God as well.

And today the murderer and the murdered are standing side by side praising their Redeemer.

I think that this is a truly wonderful Biblical story.