Acts 7:1

This great chapter is taken up entirely by the account of Stephen's so-called defense before the Sanhedrin and his martyrdom which climaxed it. Actually, Stephen's address was not so much a defense of himself as it was an epic survey of Jewish history as related to their rejection of the promised Messiah; and, while it is true a complete refutation of the charges against himself is apparent in this master oration, it is the glorious figure of the risen Lord which dominates every word of it.

It is only natural that in an address which touches so many historical events the destructive critics should have worked overtime searching for pseudocons. None of the so-called "contradictions," however, are of any importance; but a few of them will be noted for the purpose of showing the amazing weakness of such criticisms. Those great experts on Jewish history who sat in the Sanhedrin found no fault whatever with the history cited by Stephen; the only thing they objected to was his application of it!

STEPHEN'S ADDRESS

The name "Stephen" means "wreath" or "crown,"[1] and it is appropriate that the first to win the martyr's crown should have worn such a name. It is said of Stephen in the New Testament that he was a man:

Full of faith (Acts 6:5).

Full of grace (Acts 6:8, English Revised Version).

Full of power (Acts 6:8).

Full of light (Acts 6:15).

Full of scripture (Acts 7).

Full of wisdom (Acts 6:3,10).

Full of courage (Acts 7:51-56).

Full of love (Acts 7:60).[2]

The providence of God overruled the tragic event of Stephen's death (1) by making it the occasion for the scattering of the church which was so necessary in the divine purpose, and (2) by accomplishing through it (in all probability) the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the mightiest figure, apart from Christ, in the entire New Testament.

[1] Herbert Lockyer, All the Men of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 321.

[2] Ibid., p. 322.

And the high priest said, Are these things so? (Acts 7:1)

Hervey thought that the high priest at that time was Theophilus or Jonathan,[3] both being sons of Annas and both having held the office; but it appears that Bruce was more probably correct in saying that "The high priest was probably still Caiaphas, as at the trial of Jesus; he remained in office until A.D. 36."[4]

Are these things so ...? What a hypocritical question from the man who had bribed the witnesses to lie!

The best analysis of Stephen's speech seems to be that of Bruce, thus:

Stephen's historical survey reviews the history of the nation from the call of Abraham to the building of Solomon's temple. It concentrates on three main topics: (i) the patriarchal period (Acts 7:2-16); (ii), Moses and the law (Acts 7:17-43); (iii) the tabernacle and the temple (Acts 7:44-50). The first of the three sections of this speech is an introduction to the central themes; the second deals with the charge of blasphemy against Moses, the third with the charge of blasphemy against God.[5]

[3] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, p. 214.

[4] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 144.

[5] Ibid., p. 145.