The deacon Stephen is arrested for speaking out against the temple and the Law of Moses. While Luke is clear that these are false charges, Stephen may have preached something that could have been taken as “against the temple and the Law.” There is no indication in Acts that anyone “spoke out against the Law” among the apostolic community, they continued to worship in the Temple and most likely keep all of the Works of the Law which were expected of them as Jews. Sometimes, scholars speculate, based on Stephen’s Speech, that he was already starting to give up elements of the Law, as if he were a forerunner of Paul’s theology in Galatians. Nothing here would give that impression except the false witnesses.
To speak out against the Temple was not an offense worthy of death. There were, in fact, many critics of the Temple in the first century, including the Qumran community, which separated itself entirely from Temple worship because the Temple used the wrong calendar and was, therefore, celebrating Passover on the wrong day! If Stephen did speak out against the Temple, he is no different than Jeremiah, who condemned the Temple, the priesthood, and the worshipers for not doing true worship (Jer 7, for example), and Jesus himself, who called the Temple a “den of thieves”! In addition, several Second Temple period books also condemn the priesthood as corrupt.
If the audience could agree with most of Stephen’s sermon, his conclusion angers them so greatly. This generation is just as stiff-necked; therefore, they are under the same judgment! (7:51-53) The conclusion to this sermon draws on themes found throughout the Hebrew Bible.
A key theme in the sermon is that God has appointed leaders and spokesmen in the past, yet the nation has rejected them. Abraham, Joseph, and Moses are the main characters of Stephen’s sermon. Joseph was rejected by his brothers despite being full of wisdom; Israel resisted Moses in the wilderness. So, too, the prophets, who represented the word of God in the Hebrew Bible, were resisted, persecuted, and killed by previous generations of appointed leaders, just as the present generation has done to Jesus. Stephen’s speech, therefore, argues God is faithful and he does keep his promises. There has been a long line of “innocent sufferers” in the history of Israel, people who suffered at the hands of the appointed leaders who did not, in fact do the law which they had been given.
Resistance to the apostolic message represents resisting the Holy Spirit. The people are called stiff-necked. The word appears only here in the New Testament. It appears eight times in the Septuagint, usually in the context of covenant unfaithfulness (Exod 33:3, 34:9 and Deut 9:6). To be “stiff-necked” means to be stubborn, obstinate, or rigid” (HALOT). They are also described as having “uncircumcised hearts.” This phrase is also associated with covenant unfaithfulness (Jer 9:25, Lev 26:41, Jer 6:10, Ezek 44:7, 9). Stephen says that this generation has always resisted the Holy Spirit. “Resistance” is a rare word in both the New Testament and the LXX, appearing only here and in Numbers 27:14, where it describes the rebellion of the people in the Wilderness of Zin.
Stephen accuses the present generation of the same hard-headed resistance to the word of God, which was demonstrated by the worst of Israel’s kings. Those who persecuted the prophets would include Ahab and Jezebel in the northern kingdom, Manasseh in the south (who was reputed to have killed Isaiah and any other true prophet who challenged him), and the temple authorities who persecuted Jeremiah. Jeremiah spoke against the Temple and was nearly killed. Jesus also challenged the Temple, and the Temple aristocracy killed him.
The most stinging part of this critique is that these prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah and were silenced by the appointed authorities of the nation. Most likely, the Sanhedrin would have agreed with Stephen on this point: “The prior generations were corrupt, but we are nothing like them!” This generation has done the same to the Righteous One himself!
What other elements of Stephen’s speech resonate with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible? Stephen alludes extensively to the Hebrew Bible in the speech, but is he intentionally connecting his audience with the “wilderness generation”? What was the point of his constant reference to the wilderness generation?
As I wrote a few days ago, I am not sure that the story about Stephen is true as I believe that the Romans would not have allowed that execution. And if they found out about it, someone would have paid a severe price for an illegal execution. You said that you would explain all of that later. And also, Paul said that his FIRST visit to Jerusalem was three years after he experienced his calling from Jesus. Also, is there any other record of an execution by Jews after the Roman occupation? I haven’t heard or read of any. I do like Luke, but I think that he is a good historic-relgious-novel writer who loved to intrigue his audience (whom ever that was in the 1st or 2nd century) with some flights of fanciful story telling to prove a point he was trying to make. As a former priest once said on his radio show – “there is a lot of truth in the Bible but the Bible is not always truthful.” I am a Christian who is learning Hebrew and Greek in order to read all of these stories in their original languages.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
The stoning of Stephen was a turning point for the Jews during this time. Stephen was accused of speaking out against the temple and as so clearly stated by Professor Long this was not a large enough scale to be killed over. The idea that maybe he as a Hellenistic Jew was a forerunner of what Paul would preach later on after Acts 9 is a very interesting fact. I think it is interesting to note that Jesus called the Temple a den of thieves and was not immediately stoned after. I think Stephens speech was critical to help the Jews to become more bold and to have to go to all different parts of the country and spread out proclaiming Jesus. He becomes a Martyr for the people to get up and start sacrificing for Jesus. I would like to point out how when they are stoning Stephen he is filled with the Holy Spirit and the following happens: “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56) The fact that he sees the Son of Man standing next to God is something very interesting to make note of. I believe that Jesus is standing and not sitting next to His Father because He is so upset and appalled at the stiff-necked people who refuse to accept the Holy Spirit. The stoning of Stephen is a good place to see how the Holy Spirit has power and how we should be willing to do all for our Savior and Lord.
Stephen’s speech angered the temple workers, specifically the Sanhedrin, because he struck a nerve while speaking truth. He spends a lot of His time speaking about Moses and his life. The listeners seem to have no problem with this, but at the end of his speech they are aggravated. The problem arises when He calls them out for their rejection of the Holy Spirit. “Hi speech is operating typologically, or drawing patterns between Israel’s rejection of the prophet Moses and the current rejection of Jesus and the apostles” (Jipp 62). He shares how their ancestors rejected Moses, which the Sanhedrin know, but then tells them that they are the same. Acts 7:51 says, “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit.” He calls them out for being as blocked off to God’s moving as their ancestors were in the wilderness. As if that is not enough of a reason for them to feel offended, “Stephen accuses the present generation of the same hard-headed resistance to the word of God which was demonstrated by the worst of Israel’s kings” (Long). These temple leaders were men of pride, they held themselves in high regard. Hearing their own actions laid before them was enough to trigger them into rage. They killed Stephen because of his bold proclamations and that mirrors the events of both Jesus and Jeremiah who were also killed because of their testifying against the temple and its works (Long). Stephen was bold and fearless and spoke for the growth of the Kingdom despite the consequences. The Sanhedrin did not appreciate the truth because they were called stiff necked and compared to those who they were taught to despise throughout history. They considered themselves godly men, but clearly missed the opportunity to experience and accept the Spirit. This is the message that they so obviously missed within Stephen’s speech.
The speech that Stephen gave angered many people including the Sanhedrin. I believe that this is because he was specifically calling them and others out for what they were doing and failing to do. He called them out for their rejection of the Holy Spirit. He compared them to their ancestors. Jipp states that, “His speech is operating typologically, or drawing patterns between Israel’s rejection of the prophet Moses and the current rejection of Jesus and the apostles” (Jipp, 62). He compared their actions to those of their ancestors that rejected the prophet Moses. This is seen in Acts 7:51. This is an especially hard thing for the temple workers to hear because they were proud people and they felt that they were right and following God. These proud people killed Stephen for what he was teaching and it reflected what happened to Jesus for his teachings (Long). Stephen did not let the possibility of upsetting people stop him from preaching the truth that God was leaving on his heart. He chose to be bold and follow God rather than fit in the ‘cool’ or normal crowd. He stood up for what he believed in even if it meant death.
It is very noticeable when reading through Acts 7 that Stephen is indeed relating the people of his time to the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness. Stephen goes through the genealogy of Moses in chapter 7 and one interesting aspect that he points out is that the life of Moses loosely mirrors the role of Jesus. In verse 25, he speaks of how the Israelites did not understand that he was trying to rescue them through killing the Egyptian (Exudos 2:11-15) and he was rejected by his people just as Jesus had been. Verse 30 speaks of a 40-year period where stayed in the wilderness resembling Jesus’s 40 days in the wilderness. He even mentions in verse 37 that there will be another prophet to come that would be like him. Polhill mentions that the role of Moses as God’s unexpected source of salvation for his people is also parallel to the unexpected salvation through Jesus (2094). Stephen’s emphasis on Moses as the one who had delivered Israel is important because, as keepers of the law, the High Priest and Sadducees only studied the Pentateuch. It would not matter if Stephen had mentioned the other prophets because the leaders would have not paid any attention to the mention of someone outside of the scriptures that they studied. Thus, the allusion that Stephen creates around the wilderness is for the purpose of the leaders both acknowledging and comprehending what he was actually trying to say about Jesus. If Moses was the only true prophet to them, then he had to speak his message in their territory.
Looking at Stephen’s speech, his chronology seems to describe events in more detail leading up to the crafting of the tabernacle, then it suddenly connects quickly to the Temple, and judging the Sanhedrin as stiff-necked people. Perhaps, this is indeed an indication of Stephen focusing more on Israel’s early history. By making this connection, Stephen straight out affirms that throughout Israel’s history, Israel remained just as bad in their stubborn, unfaithful ways up to the present generation Stephen was preaching to. They expressed more zeal to their image by following the letter of the law and to things like the physical Temple. Stephen simply shows that they are missing the point. They have become a numerous nation, they have possessed the land, but they barely ever fulfilled their mission of blessing the whole Earth as a priestly nation (Exodus 19:6). Stephen also highlights that they “always resist the Holy Spirit” (v. 51) and it is possible to assert that Israel reject a trinitarian intervention from God. They rejected God as king (1 Samuel 8:7) and killed His prophets, Jesus as Messiah and killed Him (Acts 7:52), and rejected the apostles’ witness and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. God, in His three persons, reaches out to Israel and is rejected. Ultimately, Stephen proclaims what every other prophet proclaims over Israel after their stubbornness, that Jesus is standing in judgment at the right hand of God.
Stephen’s speech is one of the most profound speeches in all of scripture. Up until this point in scripture, we have had many people post the life of Jesus proclaiming his name and assisting in bringing people to salvation. But it really was not until Stephen that we saw someone brutally suffer for following Christ. As we know, he became the first martyr for Christ’s cause. Sometimes I wonder, how could be killed for telling the truth? But once you quickly observe the context of the world he lived in, the odds were stacked against him. The Sanhedrin and other religious people of the time thought they could do no wrong, and when Stephen called them out on their wrongdoings and sin patterns they couldn’t stand to listen to him, even though what Stephen was saying was the truth- even going as far to compare them to the previous wandering Hebrew generation. He reminds me so much of Peter when he reminds the Israelites that the blood of Jesus is on their hands and that they as a people group are responsible for his death. Perhaps a central theme throughout these seven chapters of Acts is the true followers of Jesus continually reminding the Israelites of their responsibility in the death of Christ.
In today’s day and age, it is very common for someone to be silenced when they are speaking on a controversial issue. When the masses disagree, they begin to have the power to pick and choose who has a voice. And, although this is prevalent in the modern day due to the widespread use and availability of social media platforms, it happened long ago as well. Stephen’s speech is an excellent example. Although Stephen may not have said anything against the Temple or the Law directly, he spoke in such a way that offended or maybe concerned the Jewish audience listening to his speech. They had such an angry and emotional response that they took Stephen away and stoned him to death, silencing him.
Similarly, it makes me wonder what exactly pushed them to the point where they decided to kill Stephen. “To speak out against the Temple was not an offense worthy of death” (Long, 2019, para. 2). Even if Stephen had spoken out against the Temple, he should not have been killed. Was his death a result of mismanaged anger? Was it a result of an attempt to silence the truth?
Long (2019) states if Stephen truly did speak out against the Temple, then there is no difference between him and Jeremiah, or even Jesus (para. 2). In this case, there is a pattern of people speaking out against the Temple’s corruptness. And maybe, the Jews listening to Stephen’s speech expected him to begin to repeat those same things, which would explain the false witnesses. Polhill (2008) states, “It was not Stephen but his accusers who were the ultimate rejecters of the law. In rejecting their God-sent deliverers they rejected God himself” (p. 2095).
“Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he full of the Holy Spirit…” (Acts 7:54-55a, ESV). Here, it contrasts Stephen with his audience, explicitly stating that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the people angered at his speech.
Who knows the awareness the Jewish audience had of their corruptness? But, Stephen’s speech ultimately triggered something within them that led to intense anger which led to a murder, only deepening the corruption.
As Long alluded to in his post, there are many references back to the Hebrew Bible in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. In the class notes, Stephen’s speech can be broken up into 8 points, 5 of which are connections to Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. Abraham and Isaac in verses 2-8, Joseph in verses 9-16, Moses preparing for the Exodus in verses 17-29, the actual Exodus in verses 30-36, and lastly the time period between the wilderness and the exile in verses 37-43 (Long, 2023, pp 43). Stephen spent the majority of his speech referencing how the Lord kept his promises and faithfulness to the Israelites, which is something the early church could’ve adopted. Like many of the comments above agree with, the main reason it is believed that the audience of Stephen’s speech disagreed with him is simply because of his conclusion. “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears!” (ESV, Acts 7:51). Stephen is very strongly opinionated when he made this comment, basically acknowledging the resistance to the Holy Spirit of Jerusalem. Having uncircumcised hearts usually referred to having covenant unfaithfulness, basically meaning that the Jews had no faith in the Lord and the covenant that was established during the time of Moses. I believe that the reason Stephen alluded to the wilderness is that they could learn some very important lessons from their ancestors and how they didn’t learn from their sins the first couple of times. That is part of the reason why we have access to the Bible, to learn from the stories of our ancestors.
Rather than beginning by admonishing the Sanhedrin for what they have done wrong (killing Jesus the Messiah), Stephen begins with “a selective recital of OT history” (Polhill, p. 2093). Throughout his reiteration of OT history, from Abraham to Joseph to Moses, Stephen highlights the fact that “God has appointed leaders and spokesmen in the past, yet the nation has by in large rejected them” (Long notes, pp. 42). In doing so, Stephen creates a sort of “camaraderie”, so to speak, with the Sanhedrin—hindsight is 2020, and so in looking back at the OT prophets and “spokespeople” who were rejected, the Sanhedrin cannot disagree with Stephen’s assertions. It is his conclusion, however—where he explicitly calls out the Sanhedrin for their role in killing Jesus, where he declares them “stiff-necked”—that drives the Sanhedrin to stone him.
I think Stephen’s comparison of his Jewish audience with the “wilderness generation” is intentional. The Israelites doubted God’s ability to bring them safely into the promised land in Numbers 13 and 14 (despite his bringing them out of Egypt and proving himself a mighty God). In the same way, despite God proving himself time and again in the Old Testament, when presented with the Messiah, despite the signs he performed, and even now despite the fact that he was *raised from the dead*, the Sanhedrin are blinded by their stubbornness.
I wonder if part of the reason the Sanhedrin are so stuck in their ways, so angered at Stephen’s proclamation, is out of a fear of acknowledging “what if we were wrong?” If they were wrong, then not only were they as blind as Israel throughout many parts of the Old Testament, but they also went so far as to crucify the very Messiah that they had hoped for. They are digging their heels in, because to acknowledge that they could possibly be in the wrong means their entire worldview would be shaken.
I learned that Stephen was a great believer, and he was arrested for speaking against the Law of Moses. The Israelites loved the law of Moses, and they obeyed the law of Moses. They practiced that law in their lives, and they highly respected that law. They kept the law, and they worshiped in the temple. I think the Jews were crazy about the temple and the Law of Moses. The prophets and believers who preached against the temple were killed or arrested. The Jews did not care about who, but if someone was against the Temple, then they killed those who were against the Temple. Jeremiah spoke against the Temple, and he was almost killed. Jesus also spoke against the temple, and people were mad at him, and they arrested him. They hated him so much that they killed him. The Jews were very wrong, and they always held on to the law of Moses and the temple. They did believe that God would give them the Messiah, but when Jesus came to earth, they did not believe him, and they crucified him. It is sad that the Jews did not believe in Jesus until today. If we went to Israel right now, most of the people would be Jews and Muslims. The Christians are very few there, and they must repent and follow Jesus. According to Jesus, he is the way, the truth, and the life. He is our only hope, and he can save us from death. Stephen was telling the truth to the people, and he changed so many lives even though the people did not like him.
Stephen’s speech seems to be greatly comparing the Jews now to the wilderness generation of the past. There is a part of his speech where he mentions this time of the wilderness generation (Acts 7: 35-42). In this section we see him comparing the Jews now to those who were stuck in the wilderness for their actions. The Israelites at the time directly opposed Moses who was the one that God gave to them to lead them (Polhill, 2008, 2094). A very common story that is talked about in the Old Testament, we see Stephen using it as a comparison to what the people now have done to Jesus. This is Important because this was a huge point in which the people of God had rejected him. God clearly appointed Moses to be their leader, yet they rejected him. His comparison is almost scary with how similar it is. It seems as if it is a mirror of the rejection of Moses, but instead is now a rejection of Jesus. To drive the point home, Stephen in the end of his speech makes it clear that they are no better than the ones before them (Acts 7: 51-53). The people have constantly rejected God and Stephen makes it know that the prophets allude to this constant rejection (Polhill, 2095). This is a hard pill to swallow for those who are listening, and it can be seen very clearly in their reaction. Looking at this is why a conclusion can be made that in his speech he is directly comparing them to the wilderness generation.
Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 isn’t just him defending himself, it’s a bold confrontation of Israel’s history. He walks through the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and the prophets, showing a pattern of rejection. Time and time again, God raised up leaders, but the people turned away from them and God. Stephen argues, they are doing the same thing by rejecting Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
What’s interesting is that Stephen’s message starts in a way his audience might have found common ground with. Many Jewish groups in the first century criticized the Temple and priesthood, and prophets like Jeremiah had done the same. But Stephen takes it further. I especially like how he directly accuses his audience of being just as “stiff-necked” and resistant to God as their ancestors. That’s when everything explodes.
This moment is significant in Acts. The apostles had faced opposition before, but Stephen’s speech brings things to a breaking point. His execution isn’t just about him—it marks a turning point where persecution intensifies, leading to the spread of the gospel beyond Jerusalem. It also introduces the legendary Saul, who will soon become a central figure in the church’s growth and most papers at GCU.
Stephen’s words challenge us to consider how we respond to God’s movement. Are we open to His leading, or do we resist when it challenges our expectations? His speech reminds us that faithfulness to God often means standing firm, even when it costs us everything.