This chapter Acts 7 contains the defense of Stephen before the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the Jews. There has been great diversity of opinion about the object which Stephen had in view in this defense, and about the reason why he introduced at such length the history of the Jewish people. But a few remarks may perhaps show his design. He was accused of “blasphemy in speaking against the institutions of Moses and the temple, that is, against everything held sacred among the Jews.” To meet this charge, he gives a statement, at length, of his belief in the Mosaic religion, in the great points of their history, and in the fact that God had interposed in a remarkable manner in defending them from dangers. By this historical statement he avows his full belief in the divine origin of the Jewish religion, and thus “indirectly” repels the charge of blasphemy. It is further to be remembered that this was the best way of securing the “attention” of the Council. If he had entered upon an abstract defense, he might expect to be stopped by their cavils or their clamor.
But the history of their own nation was a favorite topic among the Jews. They were always ready to listen to an account of their ancestors; and to secure their attention, nothing more was necessary than to refer to their illustrious lives and deeds. Compare Psalms 78; Psalms 105; Psalms 106; Psalms 135; Ezekiel 20: In this way, Stephen secured their attention, and practically repelled the charge of speaking reproachfully of Moses and the temple. He showed them that he had as firm a belief as they in the great historical facts of their nation. It is to be remembered, also, that this speech was broken off in the midst Acts 7:53-54, and it is therefore difficult to state fully what the design of Stephen was. It seems clear, however, that he intended to convict them of guilt, by showing that they sustained the same character as their forefathers had manifested Acts 7:51-52; and there is some probability that he intended to show that the acceptable worship of God was not to be confined to any place particularly, from the fact that the worship of Abraham, and the patriarchs, and Moses, was acceptable before the temple was raised (Acts 7:2, etc.), and from the declaration in Acts 7:48, that God does not dwell in temples made with hands. All that can be said here is:
- That Stephen showed his full belief in the divine appointment of Moses and the historical facts of their religion;
- That he laid “the foundation” of an argument to show that those things were not perpetually binding, and that acceptable worship might be offered in other places and in another manner than at the temple.
It has been asked in what way Luke became acquainted with this speech so as to repeat it. The Scripture has not informed us. But we may remark:
(1) That Stephen was the first martyr. His death and the incidents connected with it could not but be a matter of interest to the first Christians, and the substance of his defense, at least, would be familiar to the disciples. There is no improbability in supposing that imperfect copies might be preserved by writing, and circulated among them.
(2) Luke was the companion of Paul. (See the introduction to the Gospel by Luke.) Paul was present when this defense was delivered, and was a man who would be likely to remember what was said on such an occasion. From him Luke might have derived the account of this defense. In regard to this discourse, it may be further remarked, that it is not necessary to suppose that Stephen was inspired. Even if there should be found inaccuracies, as some critics have pretended, in the address, it would not militate against its genuineness. It is the defense of a man on trial under a serious charge; not a man of whom there is evidence that he was “inspired,” but a pious, devoted, heavenly-minded man. All that the sacred narrative is responsible for is the correctness of the report. Luke alleges only that such a speech was in fact delivered, without affirming that every particular in it is correct.