← Back to sermon library

Book of Acts. We're in Acts chapter 
6, the latter half of the chapter. Remember that last week in chapter 
6, verses 1 to 7, we see seven men appointed by the church, 
recognized by the church, appointed by the elders, or rather the 
apostles, to be what would later be identified as deacons in the 
church, servants in the church. And one of the men that was chosen 
is described in more detail in verse 5. That man is Stephen. And most likely Luke gives that 
description in verse 5 because of what will follow in chapter 
6. We see Stephen arrested, we will see Stephen give his defense 
before the Sanhedrin, and then ultimately we'll see the martyrdom 
of Stephen. And so this section dealing with 
the arrest of Stephen in verses 8 to 15. But I'll read beginning 
in verse 1 to remind us of the context. Now, in those days when 
the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint 
against the Hebrews by the Hellenists because their widows were neglected 
in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the 
multitude of the disciples and said, It is not desirable that 
we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, 
brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, 
full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this 
business, but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to 
the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole 
multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy 
Spirit, and Philip, Percurus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and 
Nicholas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles. 
And when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. Then the 
word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly 
in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient 
to the faith. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great 
wonders and signs among the people. Then there arose some from what 
is called the synagogue of the freed men, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, 
and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they 
were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke. 
Then they secretly induced men to say, we have heard him speak 
blasphemous words against Moses and God. And they stirred up 
the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him, 
seized him, and brought him to the council. They also set up 
false witnesses who said, this man does not seek to speak blasphemous 
words against this holy place and the law. For we have heard 
him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change 
the customs which Moses delivered to us. And all who sat in the 
council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face 
of an angel. Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we thank you for the written Word of God. 
We know it's given by inspiration of God and that it profits our 
souls. And we pray even now that you 
would profit them, that you would cause us to receive with thankful 
hearts the Word of God, that we would magnify the grace of 
God, that we would see your kindness to your servant Stephen throughout 
this section of Holy Scripture. And God may we learn very valuable 
lessons from this section as well. To that end, we pray for 
the ministry of the Spirit of God Himself, that He would illumine 
our minds and hearts, again forgiving us of all of our sins and transgressions, 
and help us now to take every thought captive to the obedience 
of Jesus Christ our Lord. And we pray in His most blessed 
name. Amen. Well, if you look back 
for just a moment at Acts chapter one, I want to remind us of the 
outline of the book. Acts chapter one, specifically 
at verse eight. This is Christ's command to his 
disciples, his apostles, these 12 that would serve him. In Acts 
1.8, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come 
upon you. And you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem and in all 
Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. So up to this 
point, we have seen the ministry confined to Jerusalem, but that's 
not all that Acts 1.8 stipulates. The gospel must go from Jerusalem 
to Judea Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Well, it 
was persecution that God ordained to make that happen. The persecution 
of the church that occurs here in Jerusalem is that which moves 
the gospel to Judea and Samaria. And interestingly, that's what 
will move the gospel as we follow the trajectory of the career 
of the Apostle Paul to the uttermost parts of the earth. We'd like 
to think that God will just cause his gospel to move without our 
suffering or without our persecution, but more often than not, it is 
the persecution of the church that is used by God for the advancement 
of his kingdom on earth. And that is precisely what we 
find here in these narratives concerning our dear brother Stephen. I want to look at two things 
this morning. First, the opposition to Stephen 
in verses 8 to 12. And then secondly, the formal 
charge against Stephen in verses 13 to 15. We cannot miss that. We cannot under-appreciate that 
Stephen is brought to the council. That is the Sanhedrin. That is 
the highest religious and political court there in Israel at the 
time. It was made up of 71 members. 
They would hear certain things, capital offenses for instance, 
which blasphemy was, so the things that were charged with reference 
to Stephen were very serious. And so we need to understand 
what's happening in verses 8 to 15. Let's note first the opposition 
to Stephen in verses 8 to 12. Notice his ministry. It's already 
been identified or introduced to us in the first section. He 
was one of those seven men that the early church identified as 
having a good reputation, as being full of faith, being full 
of the Holy Spirit. And so Luke reminds us of that 
in verse 8. Stephen, full of faith, some 
manuscripts, your translation might have grace, I think pretty 
much the same. Stephen, full of faith or grace 
and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. So 
the highlighting of the giftedness of Stephen here isn't simply 
to say what a great guy he was, but it's a connection between 
the previous verses wherein Stephen is identified by the church in 
Jerusalem with what we find here. Because of his giftedness, because 
of his ability, because he preached the gospel, because he preached 
the truth in Jesus Christ, it attracted the opposition. They 
hated him. They despised him. And we'll 
see that as we move through the particular narrative. John Calvin 
says, For so soon as the force and grace of the Spirit doth 
show itself, the fury of Satan is by and by provoked. In other 
words, if Stephen hadn't been the man that Stephen was, if 
he hadn't been full of faith or grace and power, if he hadn't 
been doing great wonders and signs among the people, then 
they would have left him alone. I think this is one of the things 
that ought to encourage our hearts as we read, say, Voice of the 
Martyrs and the various accounts of what's happening in other 
countries. Christianity is being persecuted. Christians are being 
persecuted. Why? Because they're making a 
dent. Because they're having an impact. 
Because they are speaking the truth, and that truth is met 
with great hostility and opposition. So on the one hand, we lament 
the trials and afflictions that our brothers and sisters endure, 
but on the other hand, we rejoice because they are being targeted 
as enemies of the state, enemies of false religious systems, enemies 
of those things that are not God. So on the one hand, sympathize 
and agonize and lament But on the other hand, rejoice, the 
gospel is going forth. The gospel or word of God is 
conquering. The gospel is promoting in the 
hearts of the opposition this great enmity. And notice that 
Stephen himself did these great wonders and signs among the people. Up to this point, it's only been 
ascribed to the apostles. I think Luke is trying to highlight 
for us that while not an apostle, Stephen was an apostolic man. 
He had been with those men. He had been given the gifts and 
the graces that God gave to his apostles. And so he does these 
signs. He does these wonders. But more 
importantly, he is preaching the truth. And you need to understand 
that in terms of the opposition and ultimately the formal charge 
against him at the Sanhedrin. It's not the great wonders and 
the signs. It is his doctrine. It is the truth concerning Christ 
and him crucified. It is the truth that scandalized 
the Jews. To the Jews, a stumbling block, 
but to the Greeks, foolishness, but to us, Christ is the wisdom 
and the power of God. You see that operative in the 
early church. They didn't have a problem ultimately 
with the wonders and the signs. They had a problem with his testimony 
concerning Jesus. Now notice these opponents of 
Stephen in verses 9 and 10. We see their identity. The synagogue 
was a place of instruction, worship, prayer, and scripture. That's 
what you did at synagogue. Some have observed that the church 
modeled themselves in large part after the synagogue, not after 
the temple. This is not a place of sacrifice. 
It's not a place of incense. It's not a place that was ultimately 
shut down by God in AD 70 through the Roman armies. But rather, 
the synagogue was a place where religious people gathered together 
and where they met for instruction. And this one is identified as 
a synagogue of the freed men. And the freed men were most likely 
sons of slaves, those who had been freed. There was a great 
move by Pompey in 63 BC. He enslaved a bunch of Jews. 
Most likely, this was a synagogue that was founded by them. And 
it was a synagogue that was populated not just by Hellenists, Remember, 
we saw that Hellenists were Jews that didn't come from Judea. 
They were Jews that came from other parts of the world, and 
they settled here in Jerusalem. And we see those specified or 
mentioned in verse 9. Some were Cyrenians, Alexandrians, 
and those from Cilicia and Asia. Now remember, the chief city 
of Cilicia was Tarsus. Some reckon that the Apostle 
Paul would have been amongst this particular lot. It is the 
Apostle Paul that ultimately guards the garments of those 
who stone Stephen to death. Was Saul of Tarsus one of these 
men? I don't know, but it certainly 
wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. But the one thing 
that we need to appreciate is that wherever these Jews were, 
whether it's North Africa, whether it's Asia Minor, wherever they 
find themselves, they are consistent in this. They oppose Jesus Christ. They oppose Christ's servant. 
They oppose the truth of the gospel. They neglect or reject 
rather that Jesus is the Messiah. And essentially that's what Jews 
are today. Jews have a messianic expectation. Jews think that a Messiah is 
coming. They rejected the Messiah that 
had come. They rejected the Lord Jesus 
Christ. That's what differentiates us 
from a Jewish synagogue today. They're living in expectation 
of a coming Messiah. And I guess we are too, but not 
the same coming. We're living in expectation of 
his coming in glory to judge the living and the dead. They're 
living in expectation of a Messiah that would ultimately vindicate 
the Jewish people and the Jewish nation and give them prestige 
and honor in the world around them. And so at this particular 
juncture, they are opposed to Stephen. They are opposed to 
Christianity. And when we continue in the book 
of Acts, you'll see the same opposition to the apostle Paul. Anybody who would claim that 
Christ is Messiah, Christ did what Christ said he would do, 
is a heretic, and he demands or deserves to be punished swiftly. Alexander comments, because some 
say, was it just one synagogue? Was it three synagogues? Was 
it five synagogues? Alexander makes the point. The 
essential fact of firm is still the same. whether it's 1, 3, 
or 5, to wit, that the opponents of the gospel here described 
were chiefly or entirely foreign Jews, or Hellenists, and from 
the two great regions of North Africa and Asia Minor. This is 
no small thing in redemptive history. The martyrdom of Stephen 
was basically a drawing a line in the sand. This is when you 
see that great rupture occur between Judaism and Christianity. Christianity began being recognized 
as a subset of Judaism. Now, I don't think Christians 
ever recognized themselves that way. They saw themselves as the 
inheritors of the promise of God and the fulfillment as it 
related to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jews rejected that. But from 
thenceforward, you see this rupture. Up until this point, you see 
the Sanhedrin upset about the apostles. Up to this point, you 
see them threatened. Up to this point, you see them 
tell them not to preach in the name of Jesus. We've even seen 
physical beating inflicted upon the apostles in Acts chapter 
540. But here they're going for blood. 
Here they're going to martyr Stephen. Here they're going to 
execute him. Here they're going to shed his 
blood for their cause and to try to neutralize the cause of 
Jesus Christ. Now, with reference to these 
opponents, note their inability. I've always wondered this. If 
Christianity is so fake, and it's so false, and it's so far 
outlandish, then why aren't people better at refuting it? In other 
words, if we are the kinds of people that are looked at as 
the kinds of people that believe in the existence of unicorns, 
it ought to be able to best us, or it ought to be very easy to 
best us in argument. And yet no one can, beginning 
with this synagogue of the freed men. Look at their futility when 
they meet with Stephen, according to verse 10. They were not able 
to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke. Brethren, we ought never fear. 
The truth wins. The truth always wins. Certain adherents of the truth 
may get their throats cut. Certain adherents of the truth 
may be stoned to death. Certain adherents of the truth 
may be in prison. They may lose their businesses. 
They may lose their families. They may lose their livelihood. 
But the truth always wins. You cannot stop it. It is unstoppable. It is unconquerable. And that 
is what we find here in this account with reference to Stephen. 
This fulfills what Christ had spoken in Luke's gospel. For 
I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will 
not be able to contradict or resist. Notice that, verse 10, 
they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by 
which he spoke. And most likely this was formal 
debate, most likely this was an academic setting, most likely 
there was an interchange of ideas, there was probably rules in terms 
of the procedure, and Stephen won. Stephen won hands down. These men, hanging their heads 
in shame, now have to resort to subterfuge. They have to resort 
to violence. They have to resort to closing 
the mouth of Stephen, not by their wisdom or by their rationality 
or by their arguments, but they have to close Stephen's mouth 
by stoning him to death. Again, I think this is the nature 
of the battle that exists or obtains between Christianity 
and non-Christian thought. Why are Christians hated so much? 
Why is it? Again, if it's just an idea that 
unicorns exist somewhere, they exist in my backyard, we just 
kind of write those people off as believing in fairy tales or 
they didn't really graduate from, you know, grade two and, you 
know, we pat them on the head and we say, okay, just, you know, 
have your juice and your Cheerios and sit still and quiet. See, 
Christianity is perceived as a threat. Why? Because Christianity 
tells you if you don't believe, Christianity says, if you don't 
come. Christianity says, if you don't look unto Jesus Christ, 
Lord and Savior, you will go to hell. It's that that offends. It's that that arouses the opposition. It's that claim to exclusivity 
that really bothers people. Many years ago, we had a young 
fellow in our church, and he used to go to Simon Fraser University, 
and he and I would go on clubs day and set up a little booth 
and try to pass out Christian literature. And one time, we 
always posed a provocative question to try to get people to stop 
and to talk to us. And we said, this is a marketplace 
of worldviews. To whom do you subscribe? And, 
you know, people would say, that's an interesting thought, that's 
an interesting contemplation. The world is a marketplace of 
worldviews, isn't it? You take the Hindus, you take 
the Buddhists, you take the atheists, you take, you know, whoever. 
They have a view of the world. Well, Christianity essentially 
comes along and says, you're all wrong and we're right. See, 
that's what's offensive today. In this tolerant culture, to 
be intolerant of false religion is looked at as a high crime 
against society, against thinking rational people. You know, in 
our religion, it's not stipulated that we kill you if you don't 
convert. In our religion, it's not stipulated that we'll force 
you to convert. In our religion, it's not stipulated 
that we'll be a threat or a menace to the governing authority. But 
that thought, that ideal, that exclusivity, that insistence 
that we're right, that mindset of the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill, 
looking at the various religious appendages of those pagans, says, 
the thing you worship in ignorance, Him I proclaim to you. See, that's 
what bothers people today. And it certainly bothered these 
people because Stephen bested them when it came to the presentation 
of ideas. Now note, in terms of the opposition 
to Stephen, their allegation of blasphemy in verse 11. Now 
these men, foolish as they may have been by not being able to 
contradict or resist Stephen, they're wise and they're shrewd. 
The tactic that they employ here to try to turn the popular mind 
against Stephen, this is, I mean, diabolically shrewd. will convict 
him or will accuse him of blasphemy. You see, this they did with reference 
to the Lord Jesus as well. In fact, if you think Stephen, 
think Jesus, because the similarities between Stephen and Jesus are 
incredible, and we'll investigate some of those as we move on this 
morning. But notice how they go about 
this according to verse 11. Then they secretly induced men 
to say, They secretly instigated, according to ESV, or they secretly 
persuaded the NIV. The point is, is that they were 
not able to best Stephen in debate, so now they have to go around 
to people whispering in their ears and telling them, I want 
you to report him for blasphemy. Again, it's exactly what happens 
in the ministry of our Lord Jesus. What does the Sanhedrin do? They 
seek out false witnesses so they can execute the Lord Jesus Christ. See, brethren, that's what men 
do when they can't best us by reason and logic. They try to 
secretly induce that we're bad, we're evil, we're wicked, we're 
wretched, we're a threat, we're a menace to society. If they 
can get the populace in that particular mindset, then everything 
we see happens here with Stephen will follow necessarily. Matthew 
Poole makes the comment, being overcome by reason and arguments, 
they betake themselves to all the evil arts imaginable. They 
suborn witnesses against St. Stephen as was done against Naboth. Some have seen a big connection 
between this account in Stephen, Acts chapter 6, and Naboth in 
1 Kings 21. So tonight we're going to look 
at that murder of Naboth just out of a curiosity to see the 
similarities there and to see how government can liquidate 
you if they don't like you. That should terrify us. That 
should scare us. Remember that this Sanhedrin 
is not only a religious council, it's a political council. Remember 
at the time of the Lord Jesus, they needed Pilate, didn't they? 
They had to have Pilate give the kill order for Christ. What 
do they do with Stephen? They just run him out of the 
city and execute him. I mean, what at one time they weren't 
authorized to do, they were certainly not authorized to do it at the 
murder of Stephen, and yet they do it. The persecution against 
the people of God doesn't get better, it gets worse. It escalates. They go from threatening, to 
physically beating, to ultimately murdering this godly, holy Stephen. So notice their tactic. And then 
the allegation, verse 11, then they secretly induced men to 
say, we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses 
and God. Now that may seem an odd order, 
Moses and God. Well, I think the obvious should 
be apparent. If you blaspheme Moses, the law 
giver appointed by God, you're blaspheming God who used Moses 
to convey his word. So it's not weird, it's not odd. They're getting that all wrong. 
They're blaspheming, or he says they're blaspheming Moses and 
God. Again, the seriousness of the 
charge. Leviticus 24, Deuteronomy 13, 
I think by implication indicates this is a capital offense. They're 
not just saying, revoke his library card. They're not just saying, 
we don't want him to get good parking spots. We don't want 
him to be looked upon as favorably as us in the Senate. That's not 
what they're saying. We want this man's blood. We want him 
dead. We want him done. We want him 
over. We couldn't best him in the synagogue. We couldn't rationally 
engage him. His wisdom, his spirit was such 
that the power of the presence of the Holy Spirit was such that 
we've had to go out and secretly instigate men to testify against 
him. that he's engaged in a capital 
offense. See, brethren, Christianity lived 
out may result in this. In some sense, some of these 
passages in the book of Acts are so hard to preach in a North 
American context, because we're so unaware of the kinds of suffering 
that people actually go through for the cause of Jesus Christ. 
We don't know that claim to discipleship that Jesus speaks of in Matthew's 
gospel and all the gospels. Anyone who comes to me, let him 
take up his cross daily and follow me. You know what we do? We take 
the cross out of that context and we say, well, I have a difficult 
son. That's my cross to bear. I got a difficult spouse. That's 
my cross to bear. I got a bit of a... a pain in 
my hip, that's not the cross Jesus is talking about. Cross 
in the first century meant crucifixion. Cross in the first century meant 
ignominy. Cross in the first century meant 
curse. Cross in the first century meant 
the most reprehensible form of capital punishment. Do you realize 
that not even Roman citizens could be executed by crucifixion 
without express permission from the emperor? They were saying 
that this is such a beastly form of execution. One of the rights 
and privileges of citizenship within the empire is that you'll 
never be liable to it, unless you're particularly notorious 
or worthy, then we'll execute you. Brethren, in the first century, 
they wouldn't have wore crosses around their necks. I'm not picking 
on anybody for doing that. I'm not here to debate the proclivities 
or the ability to do such things, but it just wasn't the way it 
was. The cross meant death. The cross meant shame. The cross 
meant savagery. The cross meant something unspeakable. The cross was horrific. It wasn't 
something that you used as sort of jewelry. Now again, I realize 
we associate cross with Christianity. I'm not here to rain on anybody's 
parade. The seriousness of the charge 
was blasphemy. And again, the shrewdness of 
the charge. If we can get the populace to think that he's got 
a problem with Moses, then it's in the bag. This is the reason 
for Matthew 5, 17 to 20, brethren. Matthew 5, 17 to 20, the Sermon 
on the Mount, Jesus gives the Beatitudes, and then he says 
in 5, 17, do not think that I came to abolish the law. I didn't 
come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill. Law and prophets, 
but rather to fulfill. Why does Jesus do what he does 
there? He wants to show his connection to Moses. He wants to show that 
he's not anti-Moses. He wants to show that he has 
not got the problem with Moses, but ultimately it's them that 
have the problem with Moses. And I think that's how you need 
to appreciate the procedure here. When we move through the narrative, 
it's not Stephen that has issues with Moses. It's the Sanhedrin 
that has issues with Moses. Because as Jesus said to his 
opponents, you search the scriptures for in them. You think you have 
eternal life. These are they which testify of me. He says, 
I don't need to rise up and indict you because there is one who 
does that. It's Moses. Moses wrote of me. And yet you 
don't believe him. See, there's a fundamental shift 
going on here in redemptive history. And I think these Jews understand 
it. And certainly Stephen understood it. And we need to understand 
it as well. Now, notice the arrest of Stephen 
in verse 12. They secretly induced men to say, verse 11, we have 
heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God, and they 
stirred up the people. This has to be the classic example 
or case on how to get rid of Christians in your society. First of all, we try to debate 
them. If that doesn't work, we'll secretly induce people to speak 
ill of them. And then on that basis, we'll 
stir up the people, we'll rouse the rabble, we'll get everybody 
in this fury. And then, when we get to the 
formal charge, they introduce false witnesses. Now, again, 
I don't think we understand this because we're meeting here. Nobody's 
outside with machine guns. Nobody comes in and says, you 
know, confess Jesus and you die. We just don't know what this 
kind of oppression and persecution looks like. But I may suggest, 
or I will suggest, that we need to start being aware of it. Society 
keeps going the way it's going with all this super tolerance 
stuff. Guess who's ultimately going to lose? It's us. Because 
by nature of the case, we're intolerant of others, not based 
on their ethnicity, not based on the fact that they're this 
gender. That's not what we're intolerant of. We're intolerant 
of idolatry. We subscribe to our Lord's words 
when He says, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes 
to the Father except through me. Brethren, by necessity, the 
people of God are intolerant, just like Israel of old should 
have been intolerant to Baal. They should have been intolerant 
to Asherah. They should have been intolerant to all those 
idols around them. Now, in our situation, it doesn't 
demand that we go out and kill everybody. But at the same time, 
we're not supposed to compromise our commitment to the truth claims 
of Jesus Christ. We don't say, with the prevailing 
winds of opinion in society, well, I guess this sin that was 
condemned is now OK. This sin that was condemned is 
now OK. This procedure that was then 
condemned is now OK. No, we need to hold fast and 
toe the line. We need to be faithful. We need 
to be Stephens. What does Stephen do? Stephen's 
defense is marvelous. Stephen's defense in chapter 
7 essentially says, I don't have a problem with Moses. Moses wrote 
about the very things we're seeing. Moses wrote about Jesus. I don't 
have a problem with the temple. The temple was a type. The temple 
was a shadow. The temple was an announcement 
pointing us to Jesus. Now that Jesus is here, why would 
we go back to the temple? His response in chapter seven 
is masterful, glorious, such that they're just so upset and 
infuriated. They have no other recourse but 
to kill him. I mean, again, we read church 
history, for instance, and we see how people shed blood over 
the sin of heresy. And we think, wow, that's just 
bizarre in our mind. But it wasn't bizarre in this 
first century context. I mean, this was total allegiance, 
either God or Baal. And thankfully, Stephen took 
God. Verse 12. They stirred up the 
people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him, seized 
him, and brought him to the council." John Calvin made this observation. 
I think it's appropriate. We are specially taught by this 
example, this stirring up the people. We are specially taught 
by this example how dangerous the color of good zeal is. These 
would be zealous actions, right? Zeal. I mean, it's zeal to go 
out and stir up this amount of people. Zeal is only as good 
as the truth that's driving it. Oh, that guy's really zealous. 
Yeah, but he's wrong. You get that, right? Well, he's 
really zealous and he really thinks it doesn't matter if he 
thinks he's right. If he's wrong, his zeal is bad. It's misdirected. Jesus spoke 
to that when he thought or when he said in John 16 that they'll 
kill you thinking they're doing service to God. That's exactly 
what's happening here. Calvin again, we are specially 
taught by this example how dangerous the color of good zeal is, unless 
it be governed by the Spirit of God. For it breaketh out always 
into furious madness, and in the mean season it is a marvelous 
visor to cover all manner of wickedness. See, these guys didn't 
think they were wrong. These guys thought that they 
were doing right. They even get to the point where they drive 
Stephen out of the very city itself. They gnash him with their 
teeth and they pick up stones to throw him. They did not have 
that authority. They did not have that prerogative. They're going against everything 
they say they believe with reference to the law of Moses. that zeal 
untempered by the truth of God's holy word. Just because someone 
is zealous doesn't necessarily mean they're right. They have 
to be right. I hope that makes sense. Well, 
that guy really believes what he says, but he's nuts. Don't follow him. Truth is absolutely 
paramount. The people of God must be the 
thinking people of God. Just because someone can hoot 
and howl doesn't mean they're right. Just because you can get 
15 people to prevail upon a Stephen doesn't make you right. You have 
to be right. And that's the word of the living 
and true God. Now notice, they arrest Stephen. Think about this. He's recognized in the church 
at Jerusalem of having a good reputation. He's full of faith 
and grace. We'll use both traditions there. 
Full of grace and faith, and he's full of the Holy Spirit. 
If ever there was the retort, what's a nice guy like me being 
arrested by the Sanhedrin for? This was it. He didn't do anything 
wrong. See, when we read these accounts 
or we hear these reports about our brothers and our sisters 
in other countries being in prison, they're oftentimes there for 
not having done anything wrong. This tragedy of justice is just, 
it's horrific. And that's what's happening in 
this particular instance. They seize Stephen and they take 
him to the council. They bring him before the Sanhedrin. 
The Geneva Bible makes the observation, the first bloody persecution 
of the Church of Christ began and sprang from a council of 
priests by the suggestion of the university doctors, synagogues 
being the university. These men that are disputing 
with Stephen, being the doctors, coming to this council of priests 
saying, we want you to neutralize this threat. We want you to silence 
him. We want you to stop him. He is 
a menace to our society, and as a result, he deserves to die. 
Now, let's look at the formal charge in verses 13 to 15. I want to break this down into 
two sections, the charge and then the defendant. The charge 
is verses 13 and 14, and then it closes with a view of the 
defendant in verse 15. But note the charge. Again, we're 
at the Sanhedrin, highest religious slash political council in Israel 
at the time. 71 people ruled over by the high 
priest hearing this particular case. The same sort of situation 
that our Lord Jesus faced in Matthew 26. Same sort of situation 
that the apostles face in chapters 4 and 5. Remember, they are brought 
before the Sanhedrin. They are brought before this 
council. They have to give a defense of their actions. Not necessarily 
their actions, but their preaching, their teaching, their doctrine. 
They have to testify what it is they're doing. This is a formal 
situation. They've moved from the secret 
inducement, they've moved from the stirring up the multitudes, 
they've moved to the very seizing or arrest of Stephen, and now 
they have brought Stephen before the Sanhedrin to formally charge 
him. Now notice the charge in verse 
13. It says, they also set up false witnesses. Now, this is 
language that could be innocuous in other contexts, but the way 
it's worded here, it suggests a rigged trial. It's the observation 
of C.K. Barrett, and I think he's right. 
The grammar of the text suggests that what's happening here is 
what we would call a kangaroo court. This is a rigged trial. They've got the false witnesses. 
Remember, they've already secretly induced. They've got guys to 
actually say this. Now they're before the Sanhedrin. 
Stephen is in the defendant box, and they set up false witnesses 
against him. They are perjuring themselves, 
these people. They're going to say something 
that is inaccurate and untrue about an innocent man. So the 
foundation, as I said, very similar with Jesus in Matthew 26, 59 
to 61. We'll look at that in just a 
moment to see those similarities, but the assertion. Verse 13, 
they also set up false witnesses who said, this man, this man, 
it's probably that way, that this man, Like they do with this 
Jesus of Nazareth, you know, with their lips raised and a 
sneer in their tongue. This man. Remember, they want 
blood. They've suborned false witnesses 
to go in and perjure themselves against Stephen. I doubt it's 
a rational debate or interchange at this point. It's this man. 
How dare this man do the very things that we will allege before 
your wonderful tribunal, Mr. and Mrs. Persons on the Sanhedrin. Notice the Jewish opposition 
to Christianity ultimately rested on this foundation. If you read 
Acts properly, and you read Acts the way you ought to read it, 
the first great opponent of Christianity is not the Roman Empire. The 
Roman Empire is the one who initially saw Christianity as a subset 
of Judaism. For the most part, the Roman 
Empire left Judaism alone, and so therefore they left Christianity 
alone. Later, the Roman Empire would 
ramp up their opposition to Christianity, specifically under Nero. But 
at this time, the first great persecutor of the Church was 
Jewish unbelief. It was the religion of Judaism, 
the rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. The rejection 
of Him being the one in whom all the promises of God are yea 
and amen. They are the ones who are seeking 
to silence Him. And so the Jewish opposition 
to Christianity rested on this very foundation. Verse 13, this 
man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place. I don't think that means the 
Sanhedrin's chambers. It means the temple. He doesn't 
cease to speak blasphemous words against temple and law. That's 
it right there. For the Jew, if you spoke anti-temple 
or you spoke anti-law, that was it. Blasphemy. Done. Over. It's a done deal. It's a slam done. You see, those 
two sentiments were everything in Judaism. It was temple, law. 
So if you can make the allegation stick that he speaks anti-temple 
and anti-law, then his execution should readily follow. So again, 
this is diabolical shrewdness on their part. Later on in Acts 
21, 28, it'll be said of Paul, men of Israel, help. This is 
the man, Paul, who teaches all men everywhere against the people, 
the law, and this place. Temple, this place, temple. And 
furthermore, he also brought Greeks into the temple and has 
defiled this holy place. Now, here's where I'm going to 
ask you to put on your thinking caps, give yourself a pinch, 
and wake up. Because you need to follow the 
argument here in verse 14. This is their proof of their 
allegation. So verse 13 is the charge. Verse 13, they say, this man 
does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place 
and the law. Verse 14 is a proof. It is exhibit 
A. It is the evidence for the prosecution. This is how we know we're right 
because of verse 14. Now look at what they say. For 
we have heard him say, this is Stephen, we have heard Stephen 
say that this, again, I think it's this Jesus of Nazareth, 
it's not innocuous, it's not respectful, it's not kind, it's 
this man, Stephen, and this Jesus of Nazareth. For we have heard 
him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, temple, 
Not Sanhedrin's quarters, temple, everybody needs to be on board 
with that. He will destroy this place and change the customs 
which Moses delivered to us. You see, that's their charge 
or proof for their charge. He doesn't cease speaking these 
blasphemous words against this place and against the law. How 
do we know this? Because he doesn't stop reminding 
us that Jesus said that Jesus would destroy the temple and 
that he would change the customs of Moses. Now, this isn't outlandish. This isn't, wow, we've never 
heard this before. This is precisely what they got 
Jesus on. Go back to Matthew 26. Matthew 
chapter 26. Verse 57, and those who had laid 
hold of Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where 
the scribes and the elders were assembled. Sanhedrin, council, 
that group of men that were going to hear this particular case. 
But excuse me, verse 58, Peter followed him at a distance to 
the high priest courtyard. And he went in and sat with the 
servants to see the end. Now the chief priests, the elders, 
and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put 
him to death. You really want your government doing that. Let's 
find some false testimonies so we can put this guy to death. 
Nobody ever just stops and says, man, that's not the way justice 
should proceed. That's really not the way this 
should work, right? You know, they show justice, 
that statue, Lady Justice, she's holding the scales, and she's 
got a blindfold on. Why is that? Because justice 
is blind. It's no respecter of persons. It's not, oh, he's poor, so therefore 
he's innocent. Or he's rich, therefore he's 
innocent. It's blind. See why? Messiah's described 
that way, and there was somewhat of an expectation with reference 
to Messiah that he himself would be blind because of that very 
principle. He doesn't govern or he doesn't 
judge by the appearance of the eye. He does it according to 
justice and righteousness. So you see, this is a tragedy, 
what occurred to our Lord and what is occurring to Stephen. 
Verse 59, the chief priest, the elders and all the council sought 
false testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found 
none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they 
found none. But at last, two false witnesses came forward 
and said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of 
God and to build it in three days. Look over at Mark's gospel 
in Mark chapter 14 Mark chapter 14 want to show you the similarity 
with what's happening with Stephen and show you why they're using 
this argument against Stephen in Acts chapter 6 Mark 14, verse 55, it's parallel, 
but there are some nuances that differ a little bit or add to 
or contribute to the overall argument. Notice in verse 55, 
now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony 
against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore 
false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree. 
I mean, it was dissatisfying even to the Sanhedrin. We're 
trying to get all these false witnesses, and they can't even 
get their story right. But, verse 57, then some rose 
up and bore false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, 
I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three 
days I will build another made without hands. But not even then 
did their testimony agree. Now, why is this? Why do they 
say this? Why is this sort of the allegation? In Luke's gospel, the allegation 
is he forbid paying taxes to Caesar. Remember, Luke's writing 
to Gentiles. That would really fire up Gentiles. 
If this man said, don't pay taxes to Caesar, well, then he deserves 
to die. But with reference to Matthew 
specifically and Mark to some degree, it's the Jewish offense 
that has to stick. It's the Jewish claim that he 
blasphemed that would have to stick. And so it's this anti-temple 
rhetoric. It's this anti-law rhetoric. It's those things they hinged 
their case on or found their case on. Now, one other passage 
you can turn to is in John chapter 2. John chapter 2. Just to show 
you that what they said is not accurate. But it's not so inaccurate 
that we don't know why they even said such a thing. I'm going 
to explain what I mean in just a moment. Notice in John chapter 
2. Verse 18, so the Jews answered 
and said to him, what sign do you show us since you do these 
things? Jesus answered and said to them, 
destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. Then 
the Jews said, it has taken 46 years to build this temple and 
will you raise it up in three days? But he was speaking of 
the temple of his body. Therefore, when he had risen 
from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this 
to them, and they believed the scripture and the word which 
Jesus had said." Now, I want you to appreciate what the false 
witnesses do at trial. In the first place, they misquote 
Jesus. This is big. Now, you might think, 
well, these are all little details. Men's lives are hanging in the 
balance on little details, so please pay attention. They misquote 
him. He doesn't say, I will destroy 
this temple. And of course, you're going to 
say, Butler, you preach 10 sermons on the Olivet Discourse, wherein 
Jesus promised to destroy his temple. He does it through the 
agency of the Roman armies. He doesn't take C4, walk into 
the temple complex, and say, see on the other side. He's not 
an insurrectionist. He's not a terrorist. He's not 
going to plant TNT at key places in the temple and bring it down. In John 2, he says, destroy this 
temple, this temple that's made with hands. And in three days, 
I will raise it up, the temple not made with hands, namely, 
Jesus. So you could see why, in the 
popular mind, they had this connection, Jesus and no more temple. Jesus, 
in Matthew 12, 6, says that one greater, speaking of himself, 
than the temple is here. Now, Jesus' relationship to the 
temple isn't one of replacement, as has been mischaracterized 
of a covenant theology position. Jesus is the realization for 
which the temple stood. In other words, there's no need 
for a temple when Jesus has come. I share the illustration often 
that, you know, my kids will come over and they'll bring the 
grandkids, and I'm playing with the grandkids and rolling around 
on the floor with them, and then one of the kids says, oh, did 
you see this picture of them? And try to show me the phone. 
You can text me the picture during the week. When I'm rolling around 
on the floor with these kids, I got the substance. We don't 
need the snapshot when we're in the presence of the substance. 
We don't need the temple when the greater-than-the-temple comes. 
This anti-temple rhetoric was not rhetoric calculated to infuriate 
the Jews. It was the fulfillment of God's 
Word. The first temple constructed was the Garden of Eden. The second 
being probably Noah's ark. And then you've got the tabernacle, 
the mobile temple in the wilderness. And then you have Solomon's temple. 
Solomon's temple is destroyed. They rebuild that temple. That 
temple served its purpose. Jesus comes. We no longer go 
back to temple. This is the point of the book 
of Hebrews. Yes, there's been a transition. Yes, there's been 
a change in terms of the positive law or the ceremonies associated 
with the law of God, because no longer after the once-for-all 
sacrifice of Jesus do we bring goats to the tabernacle or temple 
to try and sacrifice them in a means of atonement. Christ 
the Lord was speaking of the temple of his body. But the false 
witnesses misquote, he said, I will destroy. They also misinterpret. See, it's not enough to just 
quote the Bible properly. The devil does that, and he's 
absolutely wrong in the wilderness in Matthew chapter 4. He cites 
scripture in his combat with the Lord Jesus Christ, but he 
misses the point. See, that's another thing we 
as God's people need to be. We need to be careful exegetes, 
careful interpreters of God's Word. We need to know what the 
truth of Scripture is. It's not enough to just quote 
Scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses do that. 
Mormons do that. When I mentioned that we set 
up this table on Clubs Day for Simon Fraser University, one 
year the question was, name six of the 10 commandments and we'll 
give you a free pop. The only person that could name 
all ten of the Ten Commandments in King James English was the 
president of the Free Thinkers Association. Christians couldn't 
do it. Christians couldn't mumble out 
one, two, or three of them. It was the free thinker, as I 
said, in King James English that rattled off all ten. Brethren, 
we need to not only know the scripture and be able to recite 
the scripture, but we need to interpret it. It's not enough. That free thinker knew the Ten 
Commandments, but he didn't really know the Ten Commandments. And 
it's the same thing here. They misquote him. He said, I 
will destroy. And they misinterpret. They thought 
he was a terrorist that was going to plant C4 or dynamite or some 
other way to knock down their temple and to change the customs 
of Moses. So going back to Acts chapter 
6, it's the same trajectory. It's the same sort of argument. 
As John Gill says, they so perverted his sense as well as misrecited 
his words. That's what these false witnesses 
do in verse 14. For we have heard him say that 
this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs 
which Moses delivered to us. Very thankful that Stephen breached 
that. Very thankful that Stephen highlighted that. Very thankful 
that Stephen mentioned these particulars. So these themes 
are represented or repeated by Stephen. This does include the 
abrogation of the ceremonial law. The reality is that after 
the once-for-all sacrifice, you're no longer called upon to bring 
a goat from your flock, a pigeon from your flock, a lamb from 
your flock. The sacrifice has been paid, 
brethren. To engage in a bloody sacrifice 
at this particular point is absolutely, it's useless, it's worthless. 
This is the book of Hebrews. There's been a change in terms 
of the customs of Moses that Moses wrote about. Moses wouldn't 
say, oh no, don't do that. Moses would say, he's the one 
that all these things pointed forward to. Now that the one 
that all these things pointed forward to is here, you don't 
utilize the things that pointed forward to, you have him. You 
don't look at the iPhone when your grandkids right there. Yeah, 
you have him. And see, that's the point in 
the book of Hebrews. That's the point of early Christian 
preaching. And that's why they were brought 
into such conflict. But I want to just suggest one 
more thing. I know our time is closing, but 
I want to suggest one more thing. that when Stephen is accused 
of speaking against this holy place, and certainly the laws 
of Moses, the customs of Moses, you know the law of Moses is 
abiding, the moral law. The law of Moses abides. The 
Ten Commandments do not change. They're not alterable. They're 
not viable. They're not something that come 
and go. It's that ceremonial law, that 
priesthood law, that temple law, that sacrifice law. All that 
stuff doesn't go away because it was bad. It is fulfilled in 
Jesus. It was good for the time until 
the days of Reformation that Hebrews 9 speaks about. not this 
16th century or 17th century Reformation, 15th, 16th century 
Reformation. One other thing, though. The 
Jewish leadership, to hear that there was anti-temple rhetoric, 
it would have been understood as anti-Jewish leadership rhetoric, 
too. In other words, for the popular 
Jewish mind, the leaders included, as long as the temple was standing, 
God's happy with us. In fact, I want to prove this 
to you with the prophet Micah. You can turn to Micah chapter 
3. Micah chapter 3. Micah 3 verses 1 to 12 is basically, 
the leaders of Israel are guilty. The political leaders, the religious 
leaders, everybody involved in the leadership in Israel is guilty 
for sinning against Yahweh. And notice specifically in Micah 
3.8, but truly I, this is Micah, truly I am full of power by the 
Spirit of the Lord and of justice and might to declare to Jacob 
his transgression and to Israel his sin. Now hear this, you heads 
of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel. who abhor 
justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with bloodshed 
and Jerusalem with iniquity. Her heads judge for a bribe, 
her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money. 
Yet they lean on the Lord and say, is not the Lord among us? No harm can come upon us. Probably 
because they had with their eye the temple in view. Micah says, 
these are your issues. Your judges or your heads judge 
for a bribe, your priests teach for pay, your prophets divine 
for money, and yet they lean on Yahweh and say, is not Yahweh 
among us? No harm can come upon us. Probably 
because temple is standing. If temple is standing, everything's 
great. Temple standing, God's happy with us. If temple standing, 
then everything's cool. But notice what Micah goes on 
to say in verse 12. Therefore, because of you, Zion 
shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps 
of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills 
of the forest. You see, he says this judgment 
is coming upon you. Now, intriguingly, Micah 3.12 
saves Jeremiah the prophet. About a hundred years later, 
in his second temple sermon, Jeremiah tells Judah, your temple 
is going to be destroyed. So what do they do? Oh, Jeremiah, 
you're open to freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. 
We're a tolerant bunch around here. No, they arrest him. They 
threaten to kill him. Why? Because of his anti-temple 
rhetoric. They want to neutralize the threat. 
But then it was this passage from Micah 3.12 where they said, 
Micah spoke this in the days of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah didn't 
have him killed, so that freed up Jeremiah. But you have to 
appreciate his anti-temple rhetoric inflamed and infuriated the people 
of Judah at that time. Fast forward to Jesus before 
the Sanhedrin with what was perceived to be anti-temple rhetoric, fast 
forward from there into Acts chapter 6 with what they perceived 
to be anti-temple rhetoric, and you'll know precisely why they 
drummed up the charges they did. He doesn't cease to speak blasphemous 
words against this holy place and against the law. It's a done 
deal for Stephen. If they agree, he's dead. And 
I would imagine that Stephen knew this all too well, and that's 
why he responds the way that he does in Acts 7. He doesn't 
say the temple is a horrible, bad place. He doesn't say the 
law of Moses is a horrible, bad place. He speaks well of those 
things, but he says that they had a goal. They had a function. 
They had a purpose. And Jesus was that purpose. So that's why Stephen faces the 
trials that he faces. Look finally at verse 15. Now 
this conception or convention is used a couple of times in 
the Old Testament. I think the most noteworthy one would be 
Exodus 34. I agree with Alexander when Alexander 
said the comparison with an angel is not intended to convey a definite 
idea of the actual appearance, as we know neither how an angel 
looks nor whether all angels look alike, but merely to suggest 
the thought of something superhuman and celestial. So as I said, 
it's seen in Genesis 33.10, it's seen in 1 Samuel, it's seen in 
2 Samuel, where persons look upon another person and their 
face shown like an angel or some celestial or supernatural being. 
But I think the comparison that probably most obtains is that 
with Moses in Exodus 34. Now, I don't want to go beyond 
what Luke is doing here, but maybe Luke is suggesting this 
countenance reflects connection with Moses by Stephen, not by 
the Sanhedrin. He's accused of speaking ill 
against Moses. Well, he's the one that looks 
like Moses, not literally. Beard, facial structure, no. 
He's got the countenance that that holy man of God had. So 
as we move into his defense, as we listen to his biblical 
theology of temple and law, as we understand what it is he's 
saying, he is the right interpreter of Moses, not the Sanhedrin. The Jews today who reject Jesus 
Christ as Messiah misread Torah. They say, we adhere to Torah, 
but it's the Torah that explains Jesus the Messiah. It's the Torah 
that Christ says in John chapter 6, that Moses witnesses against 
you because Moses wrote about me. Perhaps. Now again, I don't 
want to jump too far over and say, well, that countenance link, 
but it is seen there in Exodus 34 in a very powerful way with 
reference to Moses. It wouldn't be out of line to 
think that Luke is at least subtly saying, as we go into this defense, 
Stephen before the Sanhedrin, we need to think that he is the 
one that's Moses-like and not them. Well, in terms of some 
practical observations, I would suggest in the first place we 
have the faithfulness of Stephen. I don't want to moralize the 
text and say, dare to be a Stephen, but dare to be a Stephen. He's 
not only given gifts by God to him, but he utilizes those gifts. It's recognizable among the people 
there in the church at Jerusalem that he is a man of good reputation, 
that he is a man full of faith and grace, that he is a man full 
of the Spirit. But he doesn't just sit on those 
gifts, he utilizes those gifts. He goes and he interacts with 
the synagogue of the freedmen. He interacts with those from 
North Africa and Asia Minor. He goes and he shuts the mouth 
of these men in debate. He utilizes the gifts and skills 
that God gave him in order to advance the cause of Jesus Christ. 
We need men like Stephen. As well, he is composed before 
the Sanhedrin. If the link to Moses is not the 
conspicuous thought in verse 15, certainly conspicuous is 
the fact he's not a basket case. He's not falling apart. He's 
not coming unglued at the seams. He's not saying, I can't believe 
you guys are engaged in this kangaroo court. No, they're looking 
at him steadfastly and they see his face like the face of an 
angel. He's composed under pressure. God's people may suffer, but 
God gives the grace so that they suffer well. And I think we need 
to appreciate that. As well, his defense before the 
Sanhedrin, we'll see that in chapter 7, verses 1 to 53. I 
don't know how many Sundays it's going to take us. I don't want 
to promise a lot. I don't want to promise a little. 
We'll see where the Spirit leads us, if I can borrow a phrase, 
an overworked phrase, from our charismatic fellows. But the 
point is, it is a masterful defense to the specific charges that 
are leveled against him that shows decisively that the purpose 
for which the temple was constructed and stood was to give way to 
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. As well, the opposition to Christianity. I think we should appreciate 
that, and I think we ought to appreciate. We may be at the 
early stages of this, and we certainly are at the early stages 
in terms of the disputation, in terms of the exchange of ideas, 
in terms of the unwillingness or inability of those who disagree 
with Christianity to just deal with it. They don't like to just 
deal with it. It's not enough that we are silent. We have to be removed. We have 
to be marginalized. You can't be a Christian and 
hold tenor at a university. You can't be a Christian, have 
decidedly Christian views, and actually be looked at with any 
degree of respectability. And unfortunately, the Christian 
church or academic world is responding by marginalizing those Christian 
distinctives. We're not supposed to do that. 
We're supposed to be distinctively Christian in all that we do. 
So, we see this opposition to Christianity in a failure to 
silence Christianity by reason and argument. See, Stephen wasn't 
just screaming and yelling and blathering. Stephen wasn't just 
saying, but it's the warmth that I feel from Jesus. It's the burning 
in the bosom. They were unable to resist or 
contradict the wisdom with which he spoke. That's the kind of 
men we need today, men that know the Bible, men that have exegeted 
the Word of God, men that don't misquote, men that don't misinterpret, 
but men that will stand fast declaring the truth. Shared with 
you several times, we're going to see it someday when we get 
to Acts 26. The Apostle Paul, before Festus, he said, or they 
said, much learning is driving you mad, Paul. What does he say? 
I'm not mad, most noble Festus, but I speak the words of truth 
and reason. That's been a subtle shift in 
North America, for sure. Christianity is not looked at 
as the words of truth and reason. Science, or science says, has 
all but replaced, thus saith the Lord. Why is that? One, because 
atheists are vociferous, and they're loud, and they're obnoxious, 
and they're not going to go away. But two, Christians are passive. 
They stopped studying. They stopped exegeting. They 
would respond, well, he gives me a good feeling. He may give 
you a good feeling, but reason, and rationalize, and argue from 
the text of Scripture. That's the way we silence the 
opposition. It is the truth of Christianity 
that prevails. So this failure to silence Christianity 
by reason and argument leads to this secret inducement of 
false testimony. It then leads to the stirring 
up of the population to oppose Christianity, and ultimately 
the setting forth of false witnesses. All these things are true in 
the history of the church, aren't they? This is what happened with 
our Lord. This is what happens with Stephen. 
This is what happens today. You get in there at the very 
foundation and you upbraid, you know, a man's reputation. Oh, 
he's a nut. He's a religious nut. He's a 
wing nut. He doesn't know what he's talking about. It's all 
about feelings. It's all about emotions. You do what you can 
to disarm your opponents. And that's precisely what they 
do here with Stephen. And that's precisely what they're 
trying to do today. And then finally, with reference 
to the escalation of persecution, I've already referred to it, 
they initially threatened. That was enough at first. In 
Acts 4, we don't want you to preach anymore in this name. 
And just see them, the Sanhedrin, with their long collective finger, 
looking down their noses, shaking it at these apostles, saying, 
don't you dare preach in this name. Well, the apostles say, 
OK, we'll do whatever you say. No, they say we must obey God 
rather than men. We're not going to listen to 
you shaking your finger at us. We're the ones that are actually 
interpreting the Bible properly. And they move then to beating 
them. They scourge them. The great 
council of Gamaliel, the Sanhedrin says, oh yeah, that's great, 
but let's scourge them anyway. Come on, that's horrific. Gamaliel's right, he prevails, 
and yet, and you agree with him, this is chapter five, I know 
it was a long time ago, but in chapter five, they say, well, 
nevertheless, let's scourge them, let's beat them, let's bruise 
them, let's open their back, let's make them bleed, let's 
let them know that they better never cross us again. And now, 
not very long after that, they're to the point where just completely 
disregarding the lack of authority that they possess to engage in 
capital execution of a criminal offender, they run Stephen out 
of the city. And I think that's conspicuous. 
Why? They don't want his unholy, dirty, 
blasphemous blood polluting their beautiful city. These men turn 
into a mob. These men cover their ears. These 
men gnash at him with their teeth. Just like with Jesus, Matthew's 
gospel indicates it's the Sanhedrin that smacks our Lord. They degenerate, 
they devolve, they move from the place of the religious elite 
to thug violence perpetrated against the son of God and then 
ultimately his martyr Stephen. It's the same thing in Micah. 
They were thugs then too. Micah the prophet, if you read 
Micah through and through, they were thugs operating at the same 
level. And so nothing new under the 
sun. Then I said, finally, finally 
is you need to come to Christ. If you're not a believer this 
morning, believe, come, look at Jesus and live. Because this 
Jesus is worth going through what Stephen goes through, right? He gets into this debate with 
these men, he bests them with his argument because he has the 
truth, and then they stir up false witnesses, they stir up 
the crowd, they plant false witnesses in a court, and he's ultimately 
delivered up to execution. You never hear Stephen complain. You never hear Stephen say, you 
know, what's happening to me? Again, the similarities between 
Jesus and Stephen are seen at the actual martyrdom of Stephen. 
What does Stephen cry out in that final moments when he's 
being stoned to death? Lord, do not charge them with 
this sin. Sounds just like the master who 
said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. What 
does Jesus do in Luke's gospel? Father, I commend my spirit to 
you. Stephen does the very same thing. 
He commends his spirit to the Lord Jesus Christ. He doesn't 
complain one whit. He doesn't complain at all. He's 
not saying, well, this is a tragedy. I can't believe the highest court 
in Israel is treating me this way. No, he's saying, I'm on 
trial for my fidelity to the altogether lovely and chief among 
10,000. This is where I want to be because Jesus is glorious. Jesus is worthy. Jesus is most 
excellent. And Jesus is the one who is standing 
there presiding over this and receives Stephen after he breathes 
his last. That Christ is one of the things 
we'll see. Why is he standing? Doesn't the 
book of Hebrews make a big comment in terms of Jesus sitting after 
he finishes his redemptive work? He goes up into heaven and what 
does he do? He sits. Why is he standing there when he's watching 
this scene? Because it's them that are on 
trial. It's not Stephen. Jesus is the 
presiding judge. He is standing to comfort and 
to show his willingness to receive his martyr Stephen. But he's 
standing to show that he is, in fact, the judge that is watching 
this Sanhedrin engage in a gross felony of justice. You see, brethren, 
that Jesus is worthy to be believed in, that Jesus is worthy to be 
followed, that Jesus is worthy to be defended, testified to, 
that Jesus is worthy to be engaging in rational discourse in the 
synagogues, in the churches, in the universities, wherever 
you find yourself. That Christ is altogether lovely 
and chief among 10,000. Well, let us pray. Father, we 
thank you for your Word, and we thank you for the Lord Christ. 
We ask, God, that you would give us something of the determination 
and the faith of Stephen, this man who found himself in terrible 
circumstances, but found himself even equally so in blessed circumstances. As he's filled with the Holy 
Spirit, he gazes into heaven, he sees the glory of God and 
Jesus standing at his right hand. Father, we thank you for the 
grace, the blessing, the protection that you give to your people, 
and I pray these things would encourage us to go, thou, and 
do likewise, to testify concerning our blessed Savior. We ask that 
you would be with us today, help us to sanctify the day, bring 
us together tonight that we may worship you, and we pray through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. We'll close with a brief 
time of meditation and then we'll be dismissed.