Acts
by David CookStephen's speech to the Sanhedrin, the highest court of Judaism, falls into three sections:
Stephen reviews Israel's history to demonstrate that Israel has always rejected God's messengers, culminating in the murder of God's righteous one (v. 52). It is similar to Psalms 78 and 107:
Stephen makes it clear that God cannot be localized. He was with Abraham in Mesopotamia (v. 2), with Joseph in Egypt (v. 9), and with Moses at Mount Sinai (v. 30). He could not be limited to a calf, a tabernacle, or a temple-He is the pilgrim God.
As to blasphemy against Moses, the nation has always been guilty of that. As to blasphemy against God, Israel has not only localized God to the temple but, at the same time, has rejected God's true temple, the Lord Jesus, for it is in Him that God and people meet.
Stephen condemns the Jews as being like the pagans-stubborn, resistant, and unrepentant (v. 51). They have consistently rejected God's messengers, despite the advantage of receiving God's law (vv. 52-53). This is supposed to be a speech by the defence, but as in Peter and John's appearance before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4), Stephen is on the attack. His accusers are the ones being accused.
Why does Luke give so much space to the speech? Probably for two reasons: first, the death of Stephen marks the beginning of a series of events that will result in a major advance of the gospel to Gentile lands. Secondly, we see a model defence of Christianity in the face of Jewish antagonism.
In what ways is the experience of Stephen, the church's first martyr, like that of Christ?
In verse 42, God ″gave them over″ (see also Romans 1:24, 26, 28). Does God still deal with people the way He dealt with Israel in verses 39-43?
COMMENTS (0)