Taught by
Stephen ArmstrongAccess all of our teaching materials through our smartphone apps conveniently and quickly.
Taught by
Stephen ArmstrongPart II of Stephen’s story
Tonight is his defense of the charges brought against him
In this day, there were no defense lawyers or lengthy trials
Stephen was called to speak for himself and give a defense against the charges
Gamaliel’s warning that the Sanhedrin risked fighting against God had all but been forgotten
Stephen’s discourse is the longest and most famous in Acts
And it forms a very unconventional defense, though it’s very powerful
It essentially takes the form of a retelling of the high points of Israel’s history
And at first glance it seems to be a long speech without relevance to the charges or even the Gospel
In reality, it’s a remarkable delivery of both a defense to the charges and a presentation of the Gospel
In fact, the discourse accomplishes three things simultaneously
First, it defends the the specific charges leveled by the false witnesses
Blaspheming God & Moses
Speaking against the temple, the Law and the customs of Israel
Secondly, Stephen demonstrates that God’s plan has followed a regular pattern of picturing Christ throughout the history of the nation of Israel
And that the story of Jesus is merely the continuation of the record established in the Old Testament
Third, Stephen takes opportunity to show where the religious leaders of his day had distorted and misused God’s word or Israel’s customs
Finally, Stephen brings an indictment against the leaders for failing to recognize this truth and for persecuting the saints
Stephen begins with a recap of the patriarchal period
This testimony is Stephen’s response to the charge that he blasphemed God
Though the technical definition of that charge is to speak the name of God, Stephen consents to the broader meaning of the charge
He defends himself against the suggestion that he has diminished God’s nature or character, not just His name
The retelling of Abraham’s story reflects a high view of God as a promise-keeping God
And it pays proper respect to the way God’s glory was established through the patriarchs of Israel
Secondly, look at the subtle jabs Stephen takes at the Sanhedrin
He pointedly mentioned that Abraham had been called and given a promise while still outside the land
The Pharisees and other Hebrew Jews placed excessive importance on living in the land
One of the reasons they probably chose Stephen to persecute was that he was a Jew from outside the land
Here Stephen counters that notion by pointing out that God was working with Abraham, a man who came from outside the land
God’s favor, in other words, is the result of a call and obedient faith, not a result of birthplace or family line
Another jab comes in the form of the promised inheritance
The promise to Abraham was for an inheritance that Abraham never personally received in his lifetime
Stephen demonstrates that the fulfillment of that promise wasn’t to be found in the land of Palestine, at least not in its present form
Now look for a pattern in these events that form a repeating framework for the entire discourse
A man of God’s choosing is shown in two stages
In the first stage, the man God chooses is seen falling short of the supposed goal or fullness of glory God intended
Only to be shown later reaching that very goal in a better way
The pattern repeats over the discourse to suggest that Jesus’ life is the model for this pattern
For example, Abraham is chosen by God and sent to a foreign land
But in that land, he doesn’t receive the full inheritance he was promised
Instead, he produces offspring that become a family and nation
But through a covenant, Abraham is promised to receive this inheritance in a future day
Not only does this pattern begin to suggest Christ’s own life
But Abraham’s story itself serves as an important prerequisite for Christ’s coming, since it is the Abrahamic Covenant that promises the Messiah
A quick note on apparent discrepancies in the text between Stephen’s statements and other texts of Scripture
All the differences are explainable, and the differences offer additional insight into these events
For example, Abraham’s father died in Haran before Abraham left for the land
The problem comes because the age of Haran at death would seem to be too old given Haran’s age when he is said to have become a father to Abraham and his brothers back in Ur
The confusion comes because we assume Abraham was first born in Haran’s family
Now the story turns to Joseph
In this section Stephen continues to develop the story of Jesus as reflected in the lives and circumstances of the Old Testament
Now the focus is Joseph
The first time Joseph was called to lead his family, his brothers rejected him and became jealous
Yet God was with him
Stephen’s subtle point is that rejection by men (men of Israel) doesn’t mean God is also rejecting His chosen
Eventually, God raised Joseph up and restored him
And now Stephen adds a new detail to the comparison
The family of Israel is struck by famine and stress and trial back in the land
And when Israel responded to their stress by seeking relief in Egypt, they appear before the one they previously rejected
And then they give Joseph respect
And Joseph sends for all Israel to join them
This account offers such a wonderful parallel to Christ’s experience with the nation of Israel
He appears once and comes to rule over them and his brothers (Israel) rejected him
While he is away, the Father exalts the Son to great power and authority
And Israel is suffering under dispersion and persecution
Then under stress the nation will appeal to Jesus for protection (Zechariah 12-14)
And Jesus will return for them and invite all Israel to become part of His kingdom
And here again Stephen emphasizes that God’s blessing occurred outside the land and then they returned
A further jab at the Sanhedrin that valued the land over the Messiah Himself
Now Stephen turns to Moses and in the process he’ll defend himself to the charge that he blasphemed him
The entire account of Moses is respectful and gives Moses the proper dignity
And now Moses takes the role of forerunner of Jesus
Like with Joseph, Moses is a man sent by God to deliver the Jews
This is an obvious parallel to Jesus
Several of the things Stephen says about Moses are similar to things said in the Gospel concerning Jesus
Stephen begins by reminding the leaders of Israel that God promised the nation would be oppressed
So when the time for the promise arrived, they entered slavery
During this time the nation of Jews was under oppression at the hands of evil leaders
And in the midst of that experience, God raised up a deliverer for them
And that deliverer first came as a child with a unique background
He was raised by a surrogate family
These details remind us of Christ of course
At the age of forty, Moses takes note of the plight of his people in slavery and begins to defend them
And Stephen tells us that Moses anticipated that his action would be met with gladness by his fellow Jews
But Stephen says they didn’t understand
In fact, the next day Moses tried to act as a peacemaker among his people, but they mocked him
They rejected him as a ruler and judge over them
Having been rejected, Moses fled into the desert and produced sons
All of this prefigures Christ’s first coming to deliver Israel
It also demonstrates that Israel has commonly rejected what God has offered
When it came time for Moses to return, God appeared to him
Notice again the reverence with which Stephen describes Moses
The charge of blaspheme against Moses is effectively denied here as Stephen gives a proper and respectful testimony concerning Moses
Secondly, Stephen continues to show that physical land was not the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel
The call to Moses took place outside the land
In fact, the land is counted holy simply because God was present
Further indictment of the Jewish leaders who had made the land of Israel their god
And now the man previously rejected by the nation of Israel becomes their appointed deliverer
And Stephen reminds the leadership that God Himself stated through Moses that their Messiah would be modeled on the life of Moses
Specifically, the pattern of a man “once rejected and later received” is the model that Moses provides and Jesus fulfills
Rather than Stephen speaking against Moses, it was the Sanhedrin who was
But even after their deliverance, the nation continues in their disobedient ways
Stephen emphasizes that the giving of the Law didn’t change their hearts
The people of Israel have always violated their own law
Stephen is now addressing the charge of speaking against the Law
Rather than speak against the Law, Stephen upholds the Law calling Scripture living oracles
They are living because they are the manifestation of God in Christ
They are living because they call men to a new relationship with God
In contrast to his adoration for a living word, Stephen speaks against the people’s disobedience to the Law
They were unwilling to be obedient to God and turned their backs on Him
Here’s another obvious jab at the leaders of Israel, who were unwilling to be obedient to the living word in their day
They were unwilling to be obedient to the Gospel
Their disobedience was instigated by the Jewish leaders, Aaron their high priest, who led them into idol worship
In fact, Stephen reveals that while the nation wandered in the desert, they continued to engage in idol worship and made sacrifices to Molech
By comparison, Stephen implies that it wasn’t he who spoke against the Law
It was the Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin who were guilty of this offense in the way they rejected the word of God through Christ and chose idol worship instead
And the Lord promises to judge those who engage in idol worship contrary to His revealed word
The final charge was that Stephen had spoken against the holy place, or the Temple
Stephen had probably been charged with dishonoring the Temple because he had preached on the insignificance of a building
And he likely emphasized the important of the living temple of God in the heart of the believer
Here he defends himself through a proper retelling of how the tabernacle originated and its true purpose
First, notice that the original tabernacle was not a temple
It was a tent built in the wilderness, Stephen emphasizes
Again, the blessing and grace of God arrived outside the land and in a different form than the one presently reverenced
Secondly, in keeping with the author of Hebrews, Stephen reminds the Sanhedrin that even the first tabernacle was not special in itself
Rather, it was important because it was built on a pattern as a copy of something truly important – that being God’s true dwelling place
God isn’t contained in a place built by human hands
David asked God for the privilege of building a permanent structure to honor the Lord
The idea of a temple originated with David, and though God eventually permitted it, we see that it was a manmade request in the beginning
David requested it, but God denied him the opportunity
It was granted to Solomon, a lessor king compared to David
It became a part of Solomon’s undoing
The temple was not a priority for God because He doesn’t dwell in a building made by human hands
Finally, Stephen brings his discourse to conclusion by applying all these lessons to his audience
They are repeating the sins of their fathers
They are uncircumcised in the heart, which is to say unbelievers
Interesting that Stephen uses this phrase
The use of circumcision to picture the saving work of the Spirit in the heart eventually becomes one of Paul’s favorite ways of communicating the difference between faith and works
Circumcision of the heart is contrasted with circumcision of the flesh
But here, Stephen introduces that concept
And in the audience was a young man named Saul of Tarsus
Stephen says they have rejected and persecuted the prophets as did their fathers
And in particular, they have persecuted the Righteous One
Who was foretold beforehand
All of Stephen’s discourse was intended to reflect how the Righteous One and his death were foretold in Scripture
They received the Law ordained by angels but did not keep it
To keep the Law in this context is similar to another of Paul’s later teachings
That true obedience to the Law means becoming obedient to the Gospel, because the Law points us to Christ
In response to this damning conclusion, the Sanhedrin erupts in anger
They are cut to the quick we’re told
Luke’s language literally says sawn in two
They gnash their teeth, which means to bite with loud noises
This is an expression to indicate aggressive and angry speech
Interestingly, Stephen virtually makes no mention of Jesus
And yet he has been preaching Jesus throughout the testimony
It’s also interesting to see how Stephen becomes the link between Peter and Paul
Peter is known as the Apostle who was reluctant to put aside the Law and the customs of Israel in order to follow Jesus fully
Paul is the Apostle anointed to clearly demonstrate that the New replaced the Old
Stephen is the first among the brethren to preach this new dispensation and does so within hearing of both men
While this eruption is taking place, Stephen is calmed and encouraged by a heavenly vision granted to him alone
He sees Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven
The Scripture tells us to expect this, especially Psalm 110
Later New Testament Scripture confirms this, but Stephen’s vision is the only known manifestation of that truth
Stephen alone sees what the Scriptures tell us is true
When the Messiah is seen next to the Father, He may be described at times as seated or at other times as standing
The significance of Jesus sitting is that only when a servant’s work is finished may he sit
Jesus has finished the work of redemption
But if He is seen to be standing, it reflects His ongoing work to build and guide and protect His Church
Here, Jesus is seen standing because of His work in that moment to guide Stephen’s speech and reassure Stephen that Jesus is directing the outcome
Stephen was confessing Christ before men, and the vision reminds him that Jesus keeps His promise to confess Stephen’s name before the Father
As Stephen gazes at this incredible sight, he is completely distracted away from the moment and even tries to share it with everyone
It’s as if Stephen expects that this vision is available to everyone, and if they would only see it with him, it would stop the fight
But no one else sees the vision
And when Stephen declares that he sees the Son of Man next to the Father, he is declaring that Jesus is in that place
This statement is the last straw to the Sanhedrin who view it as blasphemy
They cover their ears, rush him, drag him outside the city and stone him
According to Deuteronomy, the witnesses at the trial must be the first ones to cast stones in killing Stephen
In order to be more comfortable throwing stones, they first remove their outer cloaks and lay them at the feet of Saul
This is an incidental statement except that Luke knows how important Saul will become in his narrative later
Described as a young man meant Saul was under the age of 40
While the stoning takes place, Stephen apparently continues to have a vision of Jesus
And he asks Jesus to take his spirit immediately, probably so that he wouldn’t experience a prolonged death
And it appears Jesus answers his prayer, since he dies while still on his knees