---

It was usual in the court of the Sanhedrim to allow an accused person to plead guilty or not guilty, and to speak in his own defense. As this address of Stephen's is his defense, we must know of what he was accused. Generally it may be said that he was a blasphemer of God and the Law; but, to understand how such a charge could possibly be made, we must appreciate the intense and superstitious feeling concerning Mosaism which characterized the rulers of that day. The more manifestly that the spiritual life faded out of the older system, the more intensely the people clung to its mere forms and traditions; jealousy of it as a national system had taken the place of faithfulness to it as a revelation of God and a means of grace. Stephen was "the first man who dared to think that the gospel of Jesus was a Divine step forward, a new economy of God, which the existing Hebraic institutions might indeed refuse to accept, but which, in that case, would not only dispense with, but in the end overturn, the Hebraic institutions." So far as a charge was brought against Stephen, it closely resembled that brought against our Lord. The false witnesses declared that they had heard him say "that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place [i.e. the temple], and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." But while this was the definite charge, we find that the real offence must have been his bold and unqualified assertion of the Messiahship and divinity of Christ. Stephen's crime, in the eyes of bigoted Jewish rulers, was his discernment of the spirituality of Christ's mission; but this Stephen saw on its antagonistic side, and therefore we cannot wonder that he should excite such prejudice against himself. Olshausen well says, "The Jews, with a disposition of mind that looked to outward things, did not rightly comprehend the thoughts of Stephen, but took a distorted view of them. What he had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit of Christ, whose design it was to consecrate the world as a great temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart, that the Jews conceived as a purpose to be accomplished by violence, and thus they ascribed to him the destruction of the temple and the abolition of Jewish usages - things which he had never attempted." We may dwell on -

I. THE FORM OF THE SPEECH AS ADAPTED TO THE JEWISH AUDIENCE. It is a historical resume. With such a Jewish audience is always pleased, and for such marked attention and interest can now be secured. It is remarkable:

1. For the knowledge of Scripture which it reveals - a knowledge not concerned only with facts and persons, but with principles and their permanent applications.

2. For the skill with which he selected his Scripture points; so that not until "he had patiently traversed the whole period from Abraham to Solomon, selecting such facts as made for his own case, and setting them in skilful array, did he suffer one word to escape him at which even his most adverse hearer could take open exception." Stephen illustrates for us the power that lies in

(1) command of Scripture;

(2) self-command;

(3) skill in the art of rhetoric and of argument;

(4) spiritual insight of the deeper meanings of Divine revelation.

II. THE RELATION OF THE SPEECH TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES. He was accused of teaching what would materially change the old Jewish customs. He replies in effect

(1) that God had given a new revelation, and that he was only asking them to hear God's message and receive God's Messenger; and

(2) that, in rejecting a new message from God, they were only acting as their fathers had done in all the previous generations. This Stephen, in a very subtle way, hinted at by his historical references; but he reserved the full unfolding of it until the close of his speech. Then he presses two points home upon the heart and conscience of his audience.

(1) In reference to the charge that he proposed the destruction of the temple and its ritual, he urged that God's direct spiritual dealings with men were and always had been strictly independent of forms, or ritual, or temple. And

(2) in reference to the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, he urged that the Jews, under every succeeding form of Divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit. Dr. Dykes says, "As often as it had pleased God, through chosen messengers of his will, to lead Israel forward through a new moment of change into a fresh spiritual epoch of blessing, so often had God's thoughts been misunderstood, his purposes hindered, and his messenger rejected by the bulk of Israel. This had been their national failing - to cling to the present and material, whenever God was calling them to higher spiritual good. This they had done so often that their doing it now, by rejecting a spiritual Christ and idolizing a material temple, was only of a piece with their entire history." We must suppose that the excitement of the Sanhedrim, who detected his point, and the clamor of the crowd, who followed the cue given by the council, reached at last such a height that Stephen could only close his speech suddenly with the few intense words given us in vers. 51-53. It was a noble boldness and a sublime testimony, but we cannot wonder that it fed the flame of excitement and made a violent death for the heroic champion almost a certainty. There are times in life when what colder natures call imprudence is the immediate duty to which men are called. Stephen's burning words have carried their conviction to human consciences through the long Christian ages. Literature has no intenser warning against losing the spiritual by doggedly clinging to the bare and formal and literal. - R.T.

---

---

KJV: And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

WEB: He said, "Brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,