2. Stephen's address 7:2-53

As a Hellenistic Jew, Stephen possessed a clearer vision of the universal implications of the gospel than did most of the Hebrew Jews. It was this breadth of vision that drew attack from the more temple-bound Jews in Jerusalem and led to his arrest. His address was not a personal defense designed to secure his acquittal by the Sanhedrin. It was instead an apologetic for the new way of worship that Jesus taught and His followers embraced.

"On the surface it appears to be a rather tedious recital of Jewish history which has little relevance to the charges on which Stephen has been brought to trial; on closer study, however, it reveals itself as a subtile and skilful proclamation of the Gospel which, in its criticism of Jewish institutions, marks the beginning of the break between Judaism and Christianity, and points forward to the more trenchant exposition of the difference between the old faith and the new as expressed by Paul and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews."³⁰⁹

Luke evidently recorded this speech, the longest one in Acts, to explain and defend this new way of worship quite fully. He showed that the disciples of Jesus were carrying on God's plan whereas the unbelieving Jews had committed themselves to beliefs and behavior that God had left behind and disapproved.

The form of Stephen's defense was common in his culture, but it is uncommon in western culture. He reviewed the history of Israel and highlighted elements of that history that supported his contentions. He built it mainly around outstanding personalities: Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and, to a lesser degree, David and Solomon. The first section (vv. 2-16) deals with Israel's patriarchal period and refutes the charge of blaspheming God (6:11). The second major section (vv. 17-43) deals with Moses and the Law and responds to the charge of blaspheming Moses (6:11) and speaking against the Law (6:13). The third section (vv. 44-50) deals with the temple and responds to the charge of speaking against the temple (6:13) and saying that Jesus would destroy the temple and alter Jewish customs (6:14). Stephen then climaxed his address with an indictment of his hard-hearted hearers (vv. 51-53).³¹⁰

"Stephen . . . was endeavoring to show how the Christian message was fully consistent with and the culmination of OT revelation."³¹¹

Stephen's purpose was also to show that Jesus experienced the same things Abraham, Joseph, and Moses had experienced as God's anointed servants. As the Sanhedrin recognized them as men whom God had anointed for the blessing of Israel and the world, so should they recognize Jesus. The people to whom these three patriarchs went as God's representatives all initially rejected them but later accepted them, which was also Jesus' experience.

Stephen quoted from the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament. This was the translation most commonly used by Hellenistic Jews such as himself. His selective history of Israel stressed the points that he wanted to make.

"In this discourse three ideas run like cords through its fabric:

"1. There is progress and change in God's program. . . .

2. The blessings of God are not limited to the land of Israel and the temple area. . . .

"3. Israel in its past always evidenced a pattern of opposition to God's plans and His men."³¹²

 Stephen's view of God 7:2-16

The false witnesses had accused Stephen of blaspheming God (6:11). He proceeded to show the Sanhedrin that his view of God was absolutely orthodox. However in relating Israel's history during the patriarchal period, he mentioned things about God and the patriarchs that his hearers needed to reconsider.

 Stephen's view of Moses and the Law 7:17-43

Stephen continued his review of Israel's history by proceeding into the period of the Exodus. He sought to refute the charge that he was blaspheming against Moses (6:11) and was speaking against the Mosaic Law (6:13).

 Stephen's view of the temple 7:44-50

Stephen effectively refuted the general charges that he blasphemed God and Moses (6:11; cf vv. 2-16) and spoke against the Law (6:13; cf. vv. 17-43). He next addressed the charge that he spoke against the temple (6:13). The charges that he had said Jesus would destroy the temple and alter Jewish customs (6:14) were really specific accusations growing out of Stephen's view of the temple.

The Jewish leaders of Stephen's day attached inordinate importance to the temple, as they did to the Mosaic Law and the Promised Land. They had distorted God's view of the temple as they had distorted His meaning in the Law. Instruction concerning both the Law, which specified Israel's walk before people, and the tabernacle, which specified her worship of God, came to Moses when he was out of the Promised Land, at Mt. Sinai.

7:44 Stephen pointed out that it was the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness that God had ordered built, not the temple. God even gave Moses blueprints to follow in constructing it because it's design had instructive value. The tabernacle of testimony was important primarily because it contained God's revealed will and it was the place that God's presence dwelt in a localized sense. The "testimony"was the tablets of the Mosaic Law that rested in the ark of the covenant.

7:45 The tabernacle was so important that the Israelites brought it into the Promised Land when they conquered it under Joshua's leadership. The Greek form of "Joshua"is "Jesus."God drove out the Canaanites in faithfulness to His promise to give the land to His people. The tabernacle continued to be God's ordained center of worship through David's reign.

7:46 God blessed David's reign, and the tabernacle, not the temple, existed then. The initiative to build the temple was David's, not God's. It had been David's desire to build God a more glorious place in which to dwell. However, God did not "jump"at this suggestion because He did not need another place in which to dwell.

"The temple, Stephen implies, was a royal whim, tolerated of God."³³¹

7:47 God did not even permit David to build the temple. He was not that eager to have a temple. However, He allowed Solomon, a king who did not find as much favor in God's sight as David did, to build it.

7:48-50 Stephen hastened to clarify that the Most High God, for whom a suitable house was certainly a reasonable desire, does not restrict Himself to a habitation constructed by humans. Solomon himself had acknowledged this when he dedicated the temple (cf. 1 Kings 8:27).

"Judaism never taught that God actually lived in the temple or was confined to its environs but spoke of his Name' and presence as being there. In practice, however, this concept was often denied. This would especially appear so to Stephen, when further divine activity was refused out-of-hand by the people in their preference for God's past revelation and redemption as symbolized in the existence of the temple."³³²

Stephen quoted Isaiah 66:1-2 for support. He referred to Isaiah as "the prophet."As a prophet Isaiah was worthy of as much respect as Moses. Significantly the last part of Isaiah 66:2 says that God esteems those who are humble and contrite in spirit and who tremble at His word. Stephen left this timely and powerful challenge unstated for his hearers.

"It would seem that these verses form the real thrust of Stephen's speech. In quoting with approval Isaiah's words, Stephen would appear to imply that, as Christ is the new Moses, he is also the new Temple. In him and through him alone can men approach God."³³³

Stephen reminded the Sanhedrin that the temple, which they venerated excessively, was not the primary venue of God's person and work. He was arguing that Jesus was God's designated replacement for the temple, as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews also taught.³³⁴

"Throughout his speech he has, of course, been undermining the superstition which exalted a place of worship. The first great revelations of God had, in fact, taken place in foreign lands, Ur, Sinai, Midian, long before the temple existed (2-4, 29-34, 44-50)."³³⁵

 Stephen's accusation 7:51-53

Stephen concluded his defense by indicting his accusers. They had brought charges against him, but now he brought more serious charges against them.

In his first speech to the Sanhedrin, Peter had been quite brief and forthright (4:8-12). He had presented Jesus as the only name by which people must be saved (4:12). In his second speech to that body, Peter had again spoken briefly but more directly (5:29-32). He had charged the Sanhedrin with crucifying the Prince and Savior whom God had provided for His people (5:30-31). In this third speech before the Sanhedrin, Stephen spoke extensively giving even more condemning evidence. The Sanhedrin was guilty of unresponsiveness to God's word and of betraying and murdering the Righteous One (v. 52).

7:51 By rejecting Jesus the Sanhedrin was doing just what their forefathers had done in rejecting God's other anointed servants, such as Joseph and Moses. They were "stiff-necked,"a figure of speech for self-willed. Moses used this expression to describe the Israelites when they rebelled against God and worshipped the golden calf (cf. Exod. 33:5; Deut. 9:13). While Stephen's hearers had undergone physical circumcision, and were proud of it, they were uncircumcised in their affections and responsiveness to God's Word. They were resisting the Holy Spirit rather than allowing Him to control (fill) them. They were similar to the apostates in Israel's past (cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16) whom former prophets had rebuked (cf. Jer. 4:4; 9:26).

7:52 The Sanhedrin members were behaving just as their forefathers had. Note that Stephen had previously associated himself with "our fathers"(vv. 2, 11-12, 15, 19, 39, 44-45), but now he disassociated himself from the Sanhedrin by referring to "your fathers.""Our fathers"were the trusting and obeying patriarchs, but "your fathers"were the unresponsive apostates. The Jews' ill treatment of their prophets was well known and self-admitted (cf. 2 Chron. 36:15-16; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 2:30). They had consistently resisted God's messengers to them, even killing the heralds of God's Righteous One (cf. 3:14; 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 26:20-24; Luke 6:23; 11:49; 13:34; 1 Thess. 2:15; Heb. 11:36-38). Stephen said the Sanhedrin members were responsible for the betrayal and murder of that one, Jesus.

7:53 Their guilt was all the greater because they had received God's law, which angels had delivered (Deut. 33:2 [LXX]; cf. Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2), but they had disobeyed it. They were the real blasphemers (defiant sinners). Stephen, as an angel (cf. 6:15), had brought them new insight, but they were about to reject it too.

The primary theme of Stephen's speech is that Israel's leaders had failed to recognize that God had told His people ahead of time that they could expect a change. They had falsely concluded that the present state of Judaism was the final stage in God's plan of revelation and redemption. We too can become so preoccupied with the past and the present that we forget what God has revealed about the future. We need to keep looking ahead.

"He [Stephen] saw that the men who played a really great part in the history of Israel were the men who heard God's command, Get thee out,' and who were not afraid to obey it [cf. vv. 3, 15, 29, 36, 45]. The great men were the men who were prepared to make the adventure of faith. With that adventurous spirit Stephen implicitly contrasted the spirit of the Jews of his own day, whose one desire was to keep things as they were and who regarded Jesus and His followers as dangerous innovators."³³⁶

A second related theme is that Israel's leaders had departed from God's priorities to give prominence to secondary issues for their own glory (the Holy Land, Moses, the temple). We also can think too highly of our own country, our leaders, and our place of worship. Another related theme, the theme of Israel's rejection of the Lord's anointed servants, also runs through Stephen's speech. Jesus was another of God's anointed servants. The Jews had dealt with Him as they had dealt with the other anointed servants whom God had sent them. They could expect to experience the consequences of their rejection as their forefathers had. We need to observe the pattern of humiliation followed by glorification that has marked the careers of God's servants in the past and to anticipate that pattern in our own careers.

". . . it [Stephen's defense] is not designed to secure Stephen's acquittal of the charges brought against him, but to proclaim the essence of the new faith. It has been well said that, although the name of Christ is never mentioned, Stephen is all the while preaching Jesus'. He is demonstrating that everything in Israel's past history and experience pointed forward to God's culminating act in his plan for the redemption of the world in sending the Christ. The witness of Abraham, Joseph, Moses and David in one way or another underlined the transitory nature of existing Jewish institutions and the hollowness of Jewish claims to have the monopoly of the way to salvation. The presence of God could not be restricted to one Holy Land or confined in one holy Temple, nor could his Law be atrophied in the ceremonialism of the Sadducees or the legalism of the Pharisees."³³⁷

Stephen's speech demonstrated remarkable insight, but this was more than mere human genius because the Holy Spirit was controlling (filling) Stephen (6:5, 10). While it is easy to overstate Stephen's importance, He seems to have understood the changes that would take place because of the Jews' rejection of Jesus. He did so earlier and more clearly than some of the other leaders of the Jerusalem church such as Peter (cf. ch. 10). He appears to have been an enlightened thinker whom God enabled to see the church's future in relationship to Israel as few did this early in the church's history. Many Hebrew Jewish Christians--who still observed the Jewish hour of prayer, feasts, and temple ritual--probably did not appreciate this relationship. Stephen was in a real sense the forerunner of Paul who became the champion of God's plan to separate Christianity from Judaism.

"So he [Stephen] perceived, and evidently was the first to perceive clearly, the incidental and temporary character of the Mosaic Law with the temple and all its worship. This was the first germ of doctrine which S. Paul was afterward to carry out to its full logical and far-reaching consequences, viz. the perfect equality of Jew and Gentile in the church of God . . .

"S. Stephen then is the connecting link between S. Peter and S. Paul--a link indispensable to the chain. Stephen, and not Gamaliel, was the real master of S. Paul. . . . For the work' of Stephen lasts on till chapter xii (see xi 19), and then it is taken up by his greater pupil and successor--Paul."³³⁸