Stephen's defense.
It was usual in the court of the Sanhedrim to allow an accused person to plead guilty or not guilty, and to speak in his own defense. As this address of Stephen's is his defense, we must know of what he was accused. Generally it may be said that he was a blasphemer of God and the Law; but, to understand how such a charge could possibly be made, we must appreciate the intense and superstitious feeling concerning Mosaism which characterized the rulers of that day. The more manifestly that the spiritual life faded out of the older system, the more intensely the people clung to its mere forms and traditions; jealousy of it as a national system had taken the place of faithfulness to it as a revelation of God and a means of grace. Stephen was "the first man who dared to think that the gospel of Jesus was a Divine step forward, a new economy of God, which the existing Hebraic institutions might indeed refuse to accept, but which, in that case, would not only dispense with, but in the end overturn, the Hebraic institutions." So far as a charge was brought against Stephen, it closely resembled that brought against our Lord. The false witnesses declared that they had heard him say "that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place [i.e. the temple], and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." But while this was the definite charge, we find that the real offence must have been his bold and unqualified assertion of the Messiahship and divinity of Christ. Stephen's crime, in the eyes of bigoted Jewish rulers, was his discernment of the spirituality of Christ's mission; but this Stephen saw on its antagonistic side, and therefore we cannot wonder that he should excite such prejudice against himself. Olshausen well says, "The Jews, with a disposition of mind that looked to outward things, did not rightly comprehend the thoughts of Stephen, but took a distorted view of them. What he had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit of Christ, whose design it was to consecrate the world as a great temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart, that the Jews conceived as a purpose to be accomplished by violence, and thus they ascribed to him the destruction of the temple and the abolition of Jewish usages—things which he had never attempted." We may dwell on—
I. THE FORM OF THE SPEECH AS ADAPTED TO THE JEWISH AUDIENCE. It is a historical resume. With such a Jewish audience is always pleased, and for such marked attention and interest can now be secured. It is remarkable:
1. For the knowledge of Scripture which it reveals—a knowledge not concerned only with facts and persons, but with principles and their permanent applications.
2. For the skill with which he selected his Scripture points; so that not until "he had patiently traversed the whole period from Abraham to Solomon, selecting such facts as made for his own case, and setting them in skilful array, did he suffer one word to escape him at which even his most adverse hearer could take open exception." Stephen illustrates for us the power that lies in
II. THE RELATION OF THE SPEECH TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES. He was accused of teaching what would materially change the old Jewish customs. He replies in effect
Then he presses two points home upon the heart and conscience of his audience.