Stephen – Stomacher

Stephen

ste'-vn (Stephanos, "crown" (Acts 6:5–8:12)):

1. His Personal Antecedents

2. His Character and Activity

3. His Teaching

4. His Arraignment before the Sanhedrin

5. His Defence before the Sanhedrin

(1) Personal Defence

(2) Defense of His Teaching

6. Martyrdom of Stephen

LITERATURE

Known best as the proto-martyr of the Christian church, introducing the heroic period of persecutions. He deserves as well to be called the first great apologist for Christianity, since it was this that brought on his death as a martyr (circa 36 or 37 AD).

1. His Personal Antecedents:

As his name and his relations in the church at Jerusalem seem to imply (Acts 6:3), he was a Hellenist, i.e. a Greek-speaking Jew. Thus he belonged to that class of Jews usually residing outside of Palestine who, though distinguished from the orthodox Palestinian Jew by a broader outlook on life due to a more liberal education, were Jews none the less, the original Jewish element predominating in their character, and who might be true Israelites indeed, as Stephen was. Of his conversion to Christianity we know nothing, though there is a tradition that he was among the Seventy. As Stephen by his life and work marks a period of transition in the development of the early Christian church, so his name is connected with an important new departure within the organization of the church itself, namely, the institution of the office of the Seven (Acts 6:1), who were entrusted with the administration of the work of relief in the church at Jerusalem--the foundation of the diaconate (Iren., Haer., i.26; Cyprian, Epist., iii.3). Of the seven men, all Hellenists, elected to this office at the occasion of a grievance of the Hellenistic Christians in the Jerusalem church against the Hebrew Christians, to the effect that in the distribution of alms their widows were being discriminated against, Stephen, who heads the list, is by far the most distinguished.

2. His Character and Activity:

Stephen more than met the requirements of the office to which he was elected (Acts 6:3); the record characterizes him as "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5), i.e. of an enthusiastic faith and of a deep spirituality, and his activity was not restricted to the functions of his office; in fact while nothing is said of the manner in which he fulfilled the duties of his office, though without doubt he fulfilled them faithfully, the record makes it very clear that the importance of Stephen lay in his activity as a preacher, a witness for Christ; it is this activity which has given him the place he holds in history (Acts 22:20). In itself that is not surprising, for in the early Christian church every Christian was at once a witness for Christ, and lay-preaching was common. The Seven from the first were occupied with essentially spiritual work, as also the later diaconate was engaged in something far different from mere charity organization. But Stephen was especially qualified for this high work, having been endued by the Holy Spirit with apostolical gifts, not only that of preaching, but also that of working miracles (Acts 6:8). In his freer views of Jewish law and customs, due to his deeper conception and better understanding of the essence of Christianity, he even excelled the apostles.

3. His Teaching:

He burst the bonds of Judaism, by which the other apostles were still bound, by teaching that the temple and the Law of Moses were evanescent and that Christianity was destined to supersede Judaism (Acts 6:14). These freer views of Stephen, though possibly attributable to his Hellenic culture, were certainly not of Hellenistic origin, for just their promulgation is what brought him into controversy with the Hellenistic synagogues of Jerusalem. Though the Hellenist dispensed himself from keeping all of the Pharisaic additions to the Law, he always regarded the Law of Moses and the temple at Jerusalem as highly as the Palestinian Jew. Even Philo characterizes the Law of Moses in distinction from the laws of other nations, as stedfast, immovable and unchangeable, placing it on a level with the laws of Nature. The true source of Stephen's freer views of the Mosaic Law and the temple was Christ's own teachings, Stephen showing a wonderfully ripened understanding of them, paralleled only by that of Paul some time later. Christ's words regarding the temple (John 4:20–24; Mark 13:2) not only led Stephen to see that the true worship of God was not confined to the temple, but opened his eyes as to the purely formal character of this worship in that day, which, far from being true worship, had become a mere ceremonialism (Mark 7:6), and in the words of Christ (John 2:19) he saw an intimation of the new temple which was to take the place of the old. Thus also his conception of the transitory nature of the Mosaic Law may be traced to Christ's teaching as to the Sabbath, the laws of purifying, the fulfillment of the Law and Jewish customs of the day (Matthew 5:20) and of a better righteousness than that of the Pharisees and scribes (Matthew 9:16). As Christ had been drawn into controversy with Pharisees and scribes on account of these freer views, and as His word about the temple was used to frame the accusation against Him in His trial, so also in the case of Stephen. He did not hesitate to preach his views, choosing the Hellenistic synagogues for this purpose, and soon became engaged in controversies there. But, as the record says, his opponents "were not able to withstand the wisdom," i.e. better understanding, convincing knowledge, "and the Spirit," i.e. the deep earnestness and spirituality, "by which he spake" so convincingly (Acts 6:10; Matthew 10:19,Matthew 10:20). Seeing themselves beaten, they took recourse to the ignoble method of declaring him a blasphemer and a heretic, by using the same foul means that the enemies of Jesus had resorted to, by suborning false witnesses to the plot, by stirring up the people against him, by appealing to their Jewish prejudices and to the scribes and elders, members of the Sanhedrin, and thus eventually brought about his arraignment.

4. His Arraignment before the Sanhedrin:

The accusation which they brought against him, through the introduction of false witnesses, included a twofold charge, one against his person, a charge of blasphemous words against Moses which would make him also a blasphemer of God, and one against his teaching, charging him with revolutionary and radical statements concerning the temple and the Law. (compare Mark 14:58; Mark 13:2; Mark 15:29). "Customs of Moses" (Acts 6:14) were the institutions that distinguished the Jews and that were derived from Moses. By his reference to "this place" and "these customs" Stephen was understood to imply the destruction of the temple and the change of the Law, Christianity thus aiming not only at the overthrow of the Jews' religion but the very termination of their national existence.

The charge against Stephen's person was a baseless accusation. There was no blasphemy on the part of Stephen, save by perversion of his words. The charge against his teaching was both false and true. It was false as an implied insinuation that he impugned the divine origin and character of the temple and the Mosaic Law, but it was true as far as he conceived both to be only of a temporary nature and serving a merely provisional purpose, which, as we have seen, constituted the peculiarity of his teaching. As in the trial of Christ, the judge, Pontius Pilate, read his true verdict, "I find no guilt in him," written on His countenance and whole bearing, thus here the record tells us that the judges of Stephen, "All that sat in the council .... saw his face as it had been the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15; 2 Corinthians 3:18); as if in refutation of the charge made against him, Stephen receives the same mark of divine favor which had been granted to Moses. It is a significant fact that Stephen was not arraigned before the Sanhedrin as being a Nazarene though at bottom it was the real cause of his arraignment. Thus also his defense before the Sanhedrin, though the name of Jesus was not mentioned until the very last, was in reality a grand apology for Christ.

5. His Defense before the Sanhedrin:

While the assembly was overawed by the evidence of singular innocence and holiness written upon the countenance of Stephen (Acts 6:15), the question of the high priest "Are these things so?" broke in upon the silence. It drew forth from Stephen that masterful pleading which, so sublime in form and content and bare of all artificiality, belongs to the highest type of oratory, characterized by its deep, earnest, and genuine spirituality, the kind of oratory of which the great speeches of our own martyred Lincoln were models. It is not so much a plea in selfdefence as a grand apology for the cause which Stephen represents.

Beginning by mentioning "the God of glory" and ending with a vision of that glory itself, the speech is a wonderful apotheosis of the humble cause of the Nazarene, the enthusiastic tribute of its first great martyr delivered in the face of death. The contents of his speech are a recital of the most marked phases of Jewish history in the past, but as read from the point of view of its outworkings in the present--old facts interpreted by a spiritfilled disciple of Christ. It is in reality a philosophy of Israel's history and religion, and in so far it was a novum. Thus the new feature that it furnishes is its philosophy of this history which might be termed the Christian philosophy of Jewish history. In appealing to their reason he calls up picture after picture from Abraham to Moses; the speech exhibits vividly the continuity and the progress of the divine revelation which culminated in Jesus of Nazareth, the same thought as that expressed by Christ in Matthew 5:17 of the principal agreement between the Old Testament and the New Testament revelation.

The emotional appeal lies in the reverential and feeling manner in which he handles the history sacred to them all. The strong appeal to the will is made by holding up the figure of Moses type of the Law, in its vital significance, in such a way as passionately to apply it to the fundamental relation of divine plan and human conduct. Thus the aim of Stephen was to point out to his hearers the true meaning of Jewish history and Jewish Law in reference to the present, i.e. in such a way that they might better understand and judge the present and adjust their conduct to it accordingly. Their knowledge of Jewish history and Jewish religion as he would convey it to them would compel them to clear him of the accusation against him as blasphemer and false teacher.

In accordance with the accusation against him, his defense was a twofold one: personal defense and defense of his teaching.

(1) Personal Defense

The charge of blasphemy against God and contempt of the Law is implicitly repudiated by the tenor of the whole speech. The courteous and at once endearing terms in Stephen's address (Acts 7:2) to the council, and the terms "our fathers" and "our race" in Acts 7:2,Acts 7:19 by which he closely associates himself with his hearers, his declaration of the divine majesty of Yahweh with which the speech opens (7:2), of the providential leading of the patriarchs (7:8,10), his recognition of the Old Testament institutions as divinely decreed (7:8), his reference to the divine sanction of the Law and its condemnation of those who had not kept it (7:53), at the close of his speech, show clearly his reverence, not only for the past history of the Jewish race, but as well for its Sacred Writings and all of its religious institutions. It makes evident beyond doubt how not grounded the accusation of blasphemy against him was. Not to impiety or frivolity in Stephen, but to some other cause, must be due therefore the difference between him and his opponents. What it is Stephen himself shows unmistakenly in the second part of his defense.

(2) Defence of His Teaching

The fundamental differences between Stephen and his opponents, as is evident from the whole tone and drift and purpose of his speech, lay in that he judged Old Testament history from the prophetical point of view, to which Jesus had also allied Himself, while his opponents represented the legalistic point of view, so characteristic of the Jewish thought of that day. The significance of this difference is borne out by the fact upon which Stephen's refutation hinges, namely, the fact, proved by the history of the past, that the development of the divine revelation and the development of the Jewish nation, so far from combining, move in divergent lines, due to a disposition of obstinate disobedience on the part of their fathers, and that therefore not he but they were disobedient to the divine revelation. Thus in a masterful way Stephen converts the charge of Antinomianism and anti-Mosaism brought against him into a countercharge of disobedience to the divine revelation, of which his hearers stood guilty in the present as their fathers had in the past. In this sense the speech of Stephen is a grand apology for the Christian cause which he represented, inasmuch as it shows clearly that the new religion was only the divinely-ordered development of the old, and not in opposition to it.

The main arguments of the speech may be summed up as follows:

(a) God's self-manifestation to Israel in revealing His covenant and His will, so far from being bound to one sanctuary and conveyed to one single person (Moses), began long before Moses and long before there was a temple. Thus it was gradual, and as it had begun before Moses it was not completed by him, as is evident from his own words, "A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me" (Acts 7:2–37).

(b) The Jews to whom these revelations were granted, so far from being thankful at all stages of their history, had been slow to believe and understand them because they "would not be obedient" (Acts 7:39,Acts 7:57). They resisted the purpose of God by obstinately and stiff-neckedly opposing those through whom God worked. Thus their fathers had turned away from Moses at the very moment when he was receiving God's greatest revelation, and, instead of obeying the "living oracles" (7:38) he gave them, turned to idol-worship for which God punished them by the Babylonian captivity (7:39-43). They had killed the prophets who had protested against the dead ritualism of the temple-worship and raised their voice in behalf of a true spiritual worship as that of the tabernacle had been (7:44-50,52). This disposition of disobedience so characteristic of the race in its whole history, because, in spite of the divine revelation received, they remained unregenerate (7:51), reached its culmination in that awful crime of betrayal and murder committed by the present generation upon the "Righteous One" whose coming the prophets had predicted the rejection of Jesus of Nazareth, by which the Jews doomed not only their national existence, but also their temple-worship and the reign of the Law to destruction (7:52-6:14).

Though the name of Jesus was not uttered by Stephen in his speech and does not occur until in his dying prayer, his hearers could not fail to notice the hidden reference to Him throughout the entire speech and to draw parallels intended by Stephen: As Joseph and Moses, types of the Messiah, had been rejected, scorned and illtreated (Acts 7:9,Acts 7:27,Acts 7:39), before being raised to be ruler and deliverer, so Jesus had also been repulsed by them.

The climax of his speech is reached in Acts 7:51–53, when Stephen, breaking off the line of argument, suddenly in direct address turns upon his hearers, and, the accused becoming the accuser, charges them openly with the sin of resisting the Holy Spirit, with the murder of the prophets and the Righteous One, and with continual disobedience to the Law. These words which mark the climax, though probably not the close of the speech, pointed the moral in terms of the most cutting rebuke, and were at once prophetical as to the effect the speech would have upon his hearers and for him.

6. Martyrdom of Stephen:

Such arguing and directness as Stephen's could have but one result. Prejudiced and enraged as they were, the unanswerable arguments of Stephen, based on their own Scriptures, made them mad with fury, and doubtless through their demonstrations they stopped the speech. But Stephen, ansported with enthusiasm and inspiration, was vouchsafed a vision of the "glory of God," which he had mentioned in the beginning of his speech (Acts 7:2), and of Jesus, whose cause he had so gallantly defended (Acts 7:55). Stephen standing there, his gaze piercing into heaven, while time and human limitations seemed effaced for him, marks one of the most historic moments in the history of Israel, as his words constitute the most memorable testimony ever uttered in behalf of Christ: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man"--the only place where this title is uttered by any other person than Jesus--"standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56). Now the audience could restrain its rage no longer, and the catastrophe followed immediately. Contrary to Roman law and order they took Stephen, and without awaiting sentence against him, amid a tumultuous scene, stoned him to death, the punishment prescribed in Mosaic Law for a blasphemer (Deuteronomy 17:7; Leviticus 24:14–16). This recourse to lynch law may have been connived at by the Roman authorities, since the act was without political significance. It is noteworthy, however, that the Jewish legal forms were observed, as if to give to the violence the appearance of legality. Accordingly, Stephen was taken outside the city (Leviticus 24:14; compare Luke 4:29); the witnesses threw the first stone at him (compare Deuteronomy 17:7) after taking off their upper garments and laying them at the feet of a "young man named Saul" (Acts 7:58)--afterward Paul, now about 30 years old--who evidently had charge of the whole proceedings.

Stephen died as he had lived, a faithful witness to his Master whom he acknowledged as such amid the rain of stones hurled at him, loudly calling upon His name, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59; compare Luke 23:46), and whose spirit he exemplified so nobly when, with a final effort, bending his knees, he "cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" (Acts 7:60; compare Luke 23:34). "And when he had said this, he fell asleep" (Acts 7:60; compare 1 Corinthians 15:1–58).

The impression made by Stephen's death was even greater than that made by his life. Though it marks the beginning of the first great persecution of Christians, the death of the first Christian martyr resulted in the greatest acquisition Christianity has probably ever made, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. The vision of the risen and exalted Jesus vouchsafed to the dying Stephen presented Christianity to Saul of Tarsus in a new light, tending to remove what had been its greatest stumbling-block to him in the Crucified One. This revelation coupled with the splendid personality of Stephen, the testimony of his righteous life and the noble bravery of his sublime death, and above all his dying prayer, fell upon the honest soul of Saul with an irresistible force and inevitably brought on the Damascus event, as Augustine clearly recognized: "Si Stephanus non orasset, ecclesia Paulum non habuisset." Judged by his teaching, Stephen may be called the forerunner of Paul. He was one of the first to conceive of the fact that Christianity represented a new order of things and as such would inevitably supersede the old order. Thus his teachings forecast that greatest controversy of the first Christian century, the controversy between Judaism and Christianity, which reached its culmination-point in the Council of Jerusalem, resulting in the independence of the Christian church from the fetters of Judaistic legalism.

LITERATURE.

R. J. Knowling, "Acts" in Expositor's Greek Testament., II (1900); Feine, PRE3, XIX (1907); Pahncke in Studien u. Krit. (1912), I. S. D. Press

Steward

stu'-erd ('ish `al bayith (Genesis 43:16,Genesis 43:19; Genesis 44:1; 1 Kings 16:9), ha-meltsar (Daniel 1:11), ha-cokhen (Isaiah 22:15)):

1. Old Testament Usage:

In the King James Version the word "steward" is found in Genesis 15:2; 1 Chronicles 28:1, in addition to the above. The American Standard Revised Version renders Genesis 15:2 as "possessor," and 1 Chronicles 28:1 "rulers."

The phrase ben-mesheq in Genesis 15:2 is best rendered "son of acquisition," hence, "heir." But this is disputed. Skinner in the ICC on Ge regards the text as hopelessly corrupt, and offers no solution of the difficulty. In the other passages, the phrase 'ish `al bayith is conveniently translated "steward," though literally it is "man over the house." The word ha-meltsar in Daniel 1:11 is translated in the King James Version as a proper noun. This is certainly a mistake. The margin gives "the steward," and this is followed in the Revised Version (British and American). A better rendering perhaps would be "overseer," as this man seemed to have the superintendence of the training and feeding of the young men until they were fitted to enter the king's service. He was thus rather a steward of persons than of property (see MELZAR). In Isaiah 22:15 Shebna is described in the text as "treasurer," but in the margin as "steward," and seems to combine the ideas in both the words "treasurer" and "steward." Shebna was thus one of the highest officials, having charge of the city's funds, and of administering them for the city's benefit.

Though the word for "steward" occurs but once in that sense, the idea is one familiar to the Old Testament. Eliezer of Damascus was Abraham's slave and trusted steward. Heseems to have had the oversight of all his affairs and was entrusted with the important duty of getting a wife for Isaac. He apparently had charge over the family of his master as well as his property. Whether Isaac had such a steward or not is nowhere stated, but it is practically certain that he had. Jacob seems to have been Laban's steward for a time, as he apparently had full charge of the flocks and herds of his master. Joseph was practically Potiphar's steward, and when he became Pharaoh's chief minister, he himself had a steward over his own house (Genesis 39:4,Genesis 39:5; Genesis 44:1,Genesis 44:4). The king Elah in his brief reign of two years had a steward in charge of his household (1 Kings 16:9). The same was doubtless true of all the kings, and it may be safely inferred that every household of distinction or of sufficient wealth had a steward in charge. The functions of this officer seem at times to have included the care of the children or minors, as well as of the property. Sometimes he was a slave, sometimes a freedman.

2. In the New Testament:

epitropos, oikonomos. These two terms denote similar positions. The exact difference cannot be clearly defined, as they are sometimes almost synonymous. The two are found together in Galatians 4:2. Some scholars say they are used synonymously, others that the first word is a more general term including the latter. Lightfoot and Ellicott think that the former refers rather to the guardianship of persons, the child's legal representative, while the latter word refers to the head servant appointed to manage the household or property (compare 2 Macc 11:1; 13:2). There would, however, not be any such hard-and-fast line between their respective duties; these might vary with every master, or might be combined in one individual.

(1) In the Gospels.

The idea seems to have been perfectly familiar to the people in Christ's day. Every household of distinction seems to have had a steward in charge, Herod's steward was named Chuzas, and his wife, Joanna, followed and ministered to Jesus (Luke 8:3). The word epitropos used here is held by some scholars to imply that he had charge of the education of Herod's children. This is very probable but not certain. In the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, it is the steward who pays the laborers at the close of the day (Matthew 20:8). The parable of the Unjust Steward best illustrates the practice. This steward was a freeman, had full charge of his master's affairs and could use them to his own advantage if he chose, was fully accountable to his master and had to render an account when called upon. If unfaithful he was usually discharged at once (Luke 16:1–13). The parables of the Minae or Pounds (Luke 19:12–27), the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30), and the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33–46) teach similar truths. In His warning to His disciples Jesus seems to imply that they were to act as stewards in His absence (Luke 12:42). According to this passage a steward's task was to manage all the affairs of his master, attend to receipts and expenditures, and portion out to each one of the household what should come to him. The disciples were left thus in charge of His gospel and were to use this gift to the best advantage in behalf of others until His return. In John 2:8 the term "ruler" is given in the margin as "steward." The one referred to here was really director of the feast rather than steward, though in a sense charged with the responsibility of conducting it. Many stewards were no doubt slaves, as is implied in Matthew 24:45, while others were freedmen (Luke 16:1–21).

(2) In the Epistles.

The application of this term is largely confined to the ministry of the gospel. Paul and his fellow-laborers regarded themselves as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1,1 Corinthians 4:2). The idea is that he take scrupulous care of that which was entrusted to him, and give it out to others faithfully and as directed by his master Jesus Christ. A bishop or overseer is to be as God's steward (Titus 1:7). Peter considered himself and all other Christians as "stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10). The prevalence of the custom of having guardians and stewards over children in their minority is shown in Galatians 4:2. The difference in meaning of the two words used here is stated above. In Romans 16:23 Erastus is called the oikonomos of the city. This is best translated "treasurer." Erastus was thus an influential member of the community of Corinth and evidently a faithful Christian.

James Josiah Reeve

Stewpan

stu'-pan (Leviticus 11:35 margin).

See PAN.

Stiff-Necked

stif'-nekt (qesheh `oreph, literally, "hard of neck"): As it is figuratively used, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the word means "stubborn," "untractable," "not to be led." The derivation of the idea was entirely familiar to the Jews, with whom the ox was the most useful and common of domestic animals. It was especially used for such agricultural purposes as harrowing and plowing (Judges 14:18; 1 Corinthians 9:9).

The plow was usually drawn by two oxen. As the plowman required but one hand to guide the plow, he carried in the other an "ox-goad." This was a light pole, shod with an iron spike. With this he would prick the oxen upon the hind legs to increase their speed, and upon the neck to turn, or to keep a straight course when deviating. If an ox was hard to control or stubborn, it was "hard of neck," or stiff-necked. Hence, the figure was used in the Scriptures to express the stubborn, untractable spirit of a people not responsive to the guiding of their God (Exodus 32:9; Exodus 33:3; Deuteronomy 9:6; 2 Chronicles 36:13; Jeremiah 17:23, etc.). See also the New Testament where sklerotrachelos, is so translated (Acts 7:51), "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit.". Compare Baruch 2:30,33.

Arthur Walwyn Evans

Still

stil: "To be still" is "to keep silence" (Psalms 4:4, etc.) and so "to be quiet" (Psalms 107:29, etc.) or "inactive" in any way (Judges 18:9; 1 Kings 22:3; Zechariah 1:11, etc.). So "be still" in Psalms 46:10 means "desist from your war" (compare the Revised Version margin "let be"). The "still small voice" of 1 Kings 19:12 (the Revised Version margin "sound of gentle stillness") is due to taking the Hebrew demamah in its literal force of "silent," but the word here means "whisper"--"a whispering, little voice." This familiar passage, however, has made "still voice" good English, and the combination is used in Job 4:16 by the Revised Version margin. In Psalms 23:2 the translation "still waters" takes "waters of rest" (so literally for menuchah; compare the Revised Version margin) to mean "waters with little motion." But the meaning is either "wells by which the flocks rest" or "wells that give refreshing water." As an adverb "still" is perhaps more emphatic than in modern English; compare "power to keep still the kingdom," 2 Chronicles 22:9 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "to hold the kingdom").

Burton Scott Easton

Sting

sting (parash, "to cut into"; kentron, "a goad," "spur"): A sharp, pointed organ or instrument for inflicting wounds by puncture; sting of an adder, Proverbs 23:32; of scorpions, Revelation 9:10. In the free quotation of 1 Corinthians 15:55 from Hosea 13:14, death is personified as a deadly animal, like a scorpion or serpent, which inflicts destruction by means of sin as its kentron. It should also be remembered that in Acts 26:14 the same Greek word is used with reference to an instrument for exciting fear, rather than death. Both figures are pertinent; for death is powerless, except through sin, and, also, when sin is vanquished, the fear of death (Hebrews 2:15) is gone.

H. E. Jacobs

Stir, Stir Up

stur: Used transitively and intransitively to indicate inner, concentrated movement; translates a number of Hebrew and Greek verbs, each of which has its different shade of meaning. Thus, e.g. in Psalms 39:2, we have `akhar, "to be troubled," "excited"; in Song of Songs 2:7, `ur, "to awake," "disturb" (by the festal dances and songs). In 2 Timothy 1:6, it stands for Greek anazopureo, used of the resuscitation of a flame; in 2 Peter 1:13; 2 Peter 3:1, Greek diegeiro, "to awaken from sleep or stupor"; in Acts 21:27, Greek sugcheo, "to commingle," vividly portraying the confusion and tumult that resulted; in Acts 13:50, Greek parotruno, "to urge on"; Acts 17:13, Greek saleuo, "to shake to and fro."

Stock

stok: In English Versions of the Bible is used for:

(1) The stem of a tree, whether alive (Job 14:8; Isaiah 40:24) or cut down (Isaiah 44:19; /RAPC Wis 14:21). In Jeremiah 2:27; Jeremiah 3:9; Hosea 4:12, where the Hebrew has simply `ets, "wood," either meaning is possible (tree-worship? idolatry?). In Jeremiah 10:8 the text is doubtful.

(2) A family (Leviticus 25:47; /RAPC 1Es 5:37; Tob 5:13; 1Ma 12:21; 2Ma 1:10; Acts 13:26; Philippians 3:5).

(3) Elsewhere (Job 13:27, etc.) the word refers to an instrument of punishment.

See PUNISHMENTS.

Stoics

sto'-iks (Stoikoi):

1. Origin and Propagation

2. Metaphysics and Religion

3. Sensationalist Epistemology

4. Ethical Teaching

5. Relation to Christianity

LITERATURE

1. Origin and Propagation:

The name was derived from the Stoa Poikile, the painted porch at Athens, where the founders of the school first lectured. This school of Greek philosophy was founded at Athens circa 294 BC by Zeno (circa 336-264 BC), a native of Citium, a Greek colony in Cyprus. But the Semitic race predominated in Cyprus, and it has been conjectured that Zeno was of Semitic rather than Hellenic origin. His Greek critics taunted him with being a Phoenician. It has therefore been suggested that the distinctive moral tone of the system was Semitic and not Hellenic. Further color is given to this view by the fact that Zeno's immediate successors at the head of the school also hailed from Asia Minor, Cleanthes (331-232 BC) being a native of Assos, and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Soli in Cilicia. Several other adherents of the system hailed from Asia Minor, and it flourished in several Asiatic cities, such as Tarsus and Sidon. In the 2nd century BC the doctrine was brought to Rome by Panaetius of Rhodes (circa 189-109 BC), and in the course of the two succeeding centuries it spread widely among the upper classes of Roman society. It reckoned among its adherents a Scipio and a Cato, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the freedman Epictetus. The most adequate account of the teaching of the Greek Stoics has been preserved in the writings of Cicero, who, however, was a sympathetic critic, rather than an adherent of the school. The system acquired its most lasting influence by its adoption as the formative factor in the jurisprudence of imperial Rome, and Roman law in its turn contributed to the formation of Christian doctrine and ethics.

2. Metaphysics and Religion:

The main principles of Stoicism were promulgated by Zeno and Cleanthes, and Chrysippus formulated them into a systematic doctrine which became a standard of orthodoxy for the school, and which permitted but little freedom of speculation for its subsequent teachers. Whatever may have been the Semitic affinities of mind of Zeno and his followers, they derived the formal principles of their system from Greek antecedents. The ethical precept, "Follow Nature," they learnt from the Socratic school of Antisthenes, the Cynics. But they followed the earlier philosopher Heraclitus in defining the law of Nature as reason (logos), which was at once the principle of intelligence in man, and the divine reason immanent in the world. This doctrine they again combined with the prevalent Greek hylozoism, and therefore their metaphysics inclined to be a materialistic pantheism. On the one side, Nature is the organization of material atoms by the operation of its own uniform and necessary laws. On the other side, it is a living, rational being, subduing all its parts to work out a rational purpose inherent in the whole. As such it may be called Providence or God.

While the Stoics rejected the forms and rites of popular religion, they defended belief in God and inculcated piety and reverence toward Him. Their pantheism provided a basis for Greek polytheism also alongside of their monism, for where all the world is God, each part of it is divine, and may be worshipped. Another consequence of their pantheism was their attitude to evil, which they held to be only apparently or relatively evil, but really good in the harmony of the whole. Therefore they bore evil with courage and cheerfulness, because they believed that "all things worked together for good" absolutely.

3. Sensationalist Epistemology: The materialistic trend of their metaphysics also comes out in their epistemology, which was sensationalist. The human mind at its birth was a tabula rasa. Its first ideas were derived from sensations, the impressions made by the external world upon the soul, which they also conceived as a material body, though made of finer atoms than the external body. Out of these sense-impressions the mind built up its intuitions or preconceptions, and its notions, which constituted its store of ideas. It is not clear how far they attributed originative power to the mind as contributing some factor to the organization of knowledge, which was not derived from experience. The Stoic system is never consistently materialistic, nor consistently idealistic. Most of its terms are used in a dual sense, material and spiritual.

4. Ethical Teaching:

But its ethical teaching shows that the main trend of the system was spiritualistic. For its crown and climax was the ethics. The Stoics did not pursue knowledge for its own sake. They speculated about ultimate problems only for the practical purpose of discovering a rule of life and conduct. And in their ethics, the great commandment, "Follow Nature," is interpreted in a distinctly idealistic sense. It means, "Follow reason," as reason inheres both in man and in the universe as a whole. It is submission to Providence or the rational order of the universe, and the fulfillment of man's own rational nature. The life according to Nature is man's supreme good. How actual Nature could be the ideal good that man ought to seek, or how man was free to pursue an ideal, while he was bound in a system of necessity, were fundamental paradoxes of the system which the Stoics never solved. They summed up their moral teaching in the ideal of the sage or the wise man. His chief characteristic is ataraxy, a calm passionless mastery of all emotions, and independence of all circumstances. He therefore lives a consistent, harmonious life, in conformity with the perfect order of the universe. He discovers this order by knowledge or wisdom. But the Stoics also defined this ideal as a system of particular duties, such as purity in one's self, love toward all men, and reverence toward God. In Stoic ethics, Greek philosophy reached the climax of its moral teaching. Nowhere else outside Christianity do we find so exalted a rule of conduct for the individual, so humane, hopeful and comprehensive an deal for society.

5. Relation to Christianity:

When "certain .... of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered" Paul at Athens, and when, after the apostle had spoken on Mars' Hill, "some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again" (Acts 17:18,Acts 17:32), it is no improbable inference that the Epicureans mocked, while the Stoics desired to hear more. For they would find much in the apostle's teaching that harmonized with their own views. Paul's quotation from the classics in his Athenian speech was from the Stoic poet, Aratus of Soli in Cilicia: "For we are also his offspring." His doctrine of creation, of divine immanence, of the spirituality and fatherhood of God, would be familiar and acceptable to them. His preaching of Christ would not have been unwelcome to them, who were seeking for the ideal wise man. Paul's moral teaching as it appears in his Epistles reveals some resemblance to Stoic ethics. it is possible that Paul had learnt much from the Stoic school at Tarsus. It is certain that subsequent Christian thought owed much to Stoicism. Its doctrine of the immanent Logos was combined with Philo's conception of the transcendent Logos, to form the Logos doctrine through which the Greek Fathers construed the person of Christ. And Stoic ethics was taken over almost bodily by the Christian church.

See EPICUREANS; PHILOSOPHY.

LITERATURE. The chief extant sources are the writings of Cicero, De Finibus, De Natura Deorum, etc.; Seneca, Plutarch, M. Antoninus Aurelius, Epictetus, Diogenes Laertius, Sextus Empiricus and Stobaeus. Modern works: H. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta; Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics; R. D. Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean; W. L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed; E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism, which contains a full bibliography and deals with the relation of Stoicism to Christianity; on the latter point see also Lightfoot, Philippians, Excursus II, "St. Paul and Seneca"; histories of philosophy by Rogers, Windelband, Ueberweg, and E. Caird.

T. Rees

Stomach

stum'-uk (stomachos): In man and most vertebrates, a membranous sac-like portion of the alimentary canal, in which the earlier stages of digestion take place and in which food is prepared to yield its nourishment (1 Timothy 5:23).

Used figuratively of pride, "A proud look and high stomach" (Psalms 101:7, Prayer-book Version), and courage, "Stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach" (2 Macc 7:21 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "with manly passion").

Stomacher

stum'-uk-er: Used to translate pethighil (Isaiah 3:24 the King James Version), where the meaning is uncertain. The English word denotes that part of a woman's dress which covered the breast and the pit of the stomach. It was usually much ornamented.