Reading Acts 6.8-15 gives the impression of an extremely rapid succession of events. The miracles performed by Stephen, the controversies with his opponents, the subornation of false witnesses, the popular agitation, his arrest and his appearance before the seem to take place without interruption. Unlike the apostles at their earlier arrests (Acts 4.3; Acts 5.18), no prior detention is mentioned, and the false witnesses already seem ready when the accused is brought before the council.
However, there is no reason to think that all these events took place within a single day. Luke does not claim to report every detail of the facts he relates, and he himself acknowledges having carried out a work of research and selection (Luke 1.1-4). His narrative frequently presents summaries that condense several days, even several weeks, into a few verses. It is therefore possible that the controversies between Stephen and the members of the diaspora were numerous and repeated before his opponents decided to resort to more radical means.
The opposition also seems to have been carefully prepared. Having found themselves unable to withstand “the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (Acts 6.10), Stephen’s opponents changed strategy. They recruited false witnesses (Acts 6.11,13), stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes (Acts 6.12), and finally brought their prisoner before the . The immediate presence of the witnesses and the speed of the procedure suggest concerted action rather than an improvised reaction.
This haste can also be explained by the general context of the first chapters of Acts. Despite the repeated arrests of the apostles (Acts 4.1-22; Acts 5.17-40), the Church continued to grow (Acts 2.41; Acts 4.4; Acts 5.14). Stephen now appears as a new influential figure, “full of grace and power” (Acts 6.8), able to perform miracles and publicly confound his opponents. The religious authorities may have feared that his influence would grow to a scale comparable to that of the apostles.
The absence of prior imprisonment is therefore not an insurmountable difficulty. The Jewish leaders may have wished to take immediate advantage of the popular agitation and to prevent a delay from allowing a mobilization in support of Stephen. With the false witnesses already present, a swift appearance before the council was perfectly conceivable.
It should also be noted that Luke probably does not describe here a completed trial, but rather the opening of a judicial procedure. Nothing in Acts 6.12-15 suggests that a death sentence had already been decided. Having already had the apostles arrested and then finally released them after having them flogged (Acts 5.40), the religious authorities could hope to silence this new preacher without going as far as his execution.
The session of the may have been intended to hear the accused, to examine the charges brought against him, or even to obtain a retraction. It is only in the course of the long speech of chapter 7 that Stephen gradually moves from defense to accusation. After retracing the history of Israel, he addresses his judges directly: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7.51). He then accuses them of having betrayed and killed the Righteous One (Acts 7.52) before declaring that he sees the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7.55-56).
These statements seem to provoke the final break. Luke reports neither an official deliberation nor a sentence pronounced by the . He describes instead an outburst of collective anger: “But they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and rushed together at him” (Acts 7.57). The killing that follows bears more of the marks of a popular lynching, tolerated or encouraged by the religious authorities, than those of an execution resulting from a regular judicial procedure.
This absence of an official verdict is, moreover, an important difference from the trial of Jesus. It could indicate that Stephen’s death was not necessarily part of the authorities’ original plan. The hearing before the would then have gradually degenerated under the effect of the violence of the mutual accusations and the religious fervor of the assembly.
The parallel with the trial of Jesus nevertheless appears particularly striking. In both cases, the religious authorities find themselves confronted with a man whom they are unable to refute publicly. In both cases, they resort to false witnesses (Mark 14.55-59; Acts 6.13). In both cases, the charges concern the Temple (Mark 14.58; Acts 6.14). Finally, in both cases, the accused displays astonishing serenity. Stephen’s face even appears to the members of the “like the face of an angel” (Acts 6.15), recalling the dignity and calm shown by Jesus before his accusers.
Luke seems to have deliberately arranged his narrative so as to show that Stephen walks in the footsteps of his Master. Like Jesus, he is the victim of false testimony, appears before the , commits his spirit into the Lord’s hands, and prays for his executioners (Luke 23.34,46; Acts 7.59-60). The first Christian martyr thus appears as a faithful imitator of Christ.
Finally, the precision with which Luke mentions the Jews from Cilicia (Acts 6.9) deserves to be emphasized. Now Cilicia was the native region of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 21.39), who appears explicitly at the of Stephen (Acts 7.58) and would later acknowledge having persecuted the first disciples (Acts 22.4-5; Acts 26.9-11; Galatians 1.13). The close ties that later united Paul and Luke, the apostle’s travel companion for many years (Acts 16.10-17; Acts 20.5-15), together with Paul’s own testimonies about his past (Philippians 3.6), make it entirely conceivable that some information about the events of chapters 6 and 7 was passed directly to Luke by the former persecutor. Such a hypothesis cannot be demonstrated with certainty, but it would explain the precision of certain details and the special place given to Saul in the narrative.
Thus, the impression of speed that emerges from Acts 6.8-15 probably stems less from a real absence of delay than from Luke’s literary choice. He concentrates his narrative on the essential elements in order to show the gradual rise of opposition, the continuity between Jesus and his first martyr, and the decisive turning point that Stephen’s death represents in the history of the Church. Indeed, the persecution that followed would cause the dispersion of the believers and promote the spread of the Gospel beyond Jerusalem (Acts 8.1-4), thus opening a new stage in the fulfillment of the missionary program announced by Jesus (Acts 1.8).