Key Theme: Stephen argues from the OT that he is not guilty of blasphemy, but that instead, his opponents are guilty of resisting God because they have tried to put Him in their cultural box.

The key question is,

v “How big is God?“

v “Who has access to Him?”

v “How?”

Outline:

7:1-8 Abraham

7:8-16 Joseph

7:17-34 Moses-rejected Deliverer

7:35-43 Moses- rejected Prophet and Leader

7:44-50 Tabernacle and temple

7:51-53 Stephen gives judgment

Warm-up/Intro Questions: Have you ever had the experience of discovering that what you thought was true about God and about what it means to follow Him was wrong? What was that like for you? How did you handle it?

Study Notes and Questions for Whole Group Discussion

Verses 7:1-8

* What’s going on here?

* What is the high priest asking Stephen?

* What are the “things” being referred to?

Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin and questioned by the high priest. “Are these things so?” In other words, are you guilty of speaking against Moses and God, against the temple and the law? Are you guilty of blasphemy?

In his speech Stephen didn’t explain that he had never said Jesus would physically destroy the temple. Jesus had never said this and so Stephen hadn’t either. But Stephen had begun to draw conclusions from what Jesus had said and from his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension that would alter his view of the temple and laws. And this altered view of the temple wold have sounded blasphemous to the council. So, what Stephen tried to do in his speech was to argue, from the OT scriptures, that he was not being blasphemous either against God or against Moses and the Law.

Verses 2-8.

• Who is the main character?

• What happened to him?
• Where did God appear to him?
• Is this important?
• What did God say to him?
• What didn’t God give to Abraham?
• What did God hive him?
• What’s significant about all this?

Palestinian Jewish tradition strongly emphasized that there was something particularly special, holy sacred about the land of Israel. Some teachers even claimed that God revealed himself directly only in the land of Israel. In verses 2-8, Stephen points out that although God called Abraham to the Promised Land, He revealed Himself to Abraham in Mesopotamia, far to the east of Palestine. Further, although Abraham was the father of the Jews and was seen as the model person of God by the Jews, neither he nor his descendants for 400 years were able to possess the Holy Land. Stephen’s point was that the promise of God, the revelation of His will, and radical faithfulness to Him was not contingent in any way to the geography of Palestine. God and His purposes were much bigger than a particular piece of land.

Verses 7:9-16

• What’s going on here?
• Again, who is the main character?
• How is he viewed in Jewish history?
• What happens to him?
• What does God do?
• Where?
• What point is Stephen making?

Look at vv. 11-13. What is Stephen trying to say here?

The main character here is Joseph, one of the key leaders in Jewish history, who was mightily used by God to deliver his people. Out of jealousy, his brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt. And that’s where God met him- in Egypt, not Palestine. Joseph’s jealous brothers, those who opposed Joseph, the man of God, were Israel’s patriarchs. So, Stephen begins the second emphasis of his speech: You, Israel, oppose the real leaders God gives you. Stephen punctuates this point in vv. 11-13. Joseph rescued his family, but at first they did not recognize him. This is like a parable: Joseph’s family did not recognize its God-appointed deliverer; Israel does not recognize the deliverer God sends to her.

The other theme that begins to emerge here is that of God’s sovereignty and faithfulness. Despite the jealousy of his brothers and Joseph’s being sold into slavery, God was with Joseph, regularly rescuing him from all his afflictions and, in fact, using them to accomplish His purposes. Joseph is a clear example that opposition to something or someone that is favored by God will not succeed; instead, it back fires. Here, Stephen is using Joseph’s life to foreshadow Jesus’ life (and his own)-opposed, but vindicated by God.

Verses 7:17-35

• Who is the main character?
• Where is the action taking place?
• What kind of shape are the Israelites in?
• How does that compare with the plight of the Jews in the 1^st Century AD?
• What might Stephen by implying here?

Israel’s hard times in Egypt, during which a deliverer was desperately needed, resembles the difficulties the Jews were experiencing in 1^st century Palestine. They were under Roman occupation which at times became very oppressive, and in an ironic and tragic parallel, they also had experienced the horror of their newborn children being killed when Herod, in fear, dealt carefully with the Jews by having their children killed (Mt. 2:16). As in the time of Moses, many people in the 1^st Century were looking for another prophet like Moses to deliver them from oppression.

Why does Stephen mention Moses’ gentile education in vv. 20-22?

It contributes to Stephen’s polemic that God planned to reach beyond Israel even from the beginning.

What’s the point of vv. 23-29? What did Moses sacrifice or risk? Why? How did he see Himself? What did he expect would happen? What actually happened?

Moses sacrificed his standing in Egypt to identify with his people. “He supposed that his kinfolk would understand that God through him was rescuing them, but they did not understand” (v. 25). As with Joseph, God raised Moses to deliver his people and the people rejected their God-appointed deliverer.

Okay, what happens in vv. 30-34?

• * Where does the action take place?
• * Where is Mt Sinai?
• * How does God refer to the ground upon which Moses is standing?
• * What makes it holy?
• * Where else do we see this “holy ground” or “holy place” language?

God not only revealed Himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai and sent him to Egypt, but He also called the mountain where Moses was standing “holy ground”, the same term (same Greek words), was used by Stephen’s accusers for the temple (6:13). Stephen is saying that what made the ground upon which Moses was standing holy was God’s presence. It wasn’t the mountain or the building itself which was the critical factor, but the Lord’s presence. And the Lord could manifest His presence wherever He chose.

To sum up vv. 17-34:

1) God reveals Himself outside the Holy Land.

2) Israel rejects her deliverers.

Verses 7:35-41

* What’s going on here?

* How is Moses described?

* What did he do and say?

* How was he received by his people?

* What implied comparison is Stephen making?

* Who is like Moses?

o How?

Moses is described as a God-appointed ruler and judge and liberator who does wonders and signs and who is rejected by his people. Jesus also was a God-appointed ruler and judge who did wonders and signs. Many Jewish people recognized that God would send a deliverer like Moses as Stephen indicates in v. 37 (quoting from Dt. 18:18). Stephen, in effect, asks, “In what way will the prophet be like Moses?” His answer is: He will be rejected by his people (vv. 35, 39); his hearers very opposition proves his point (cf. Isa 53:1-3)

What further point does Stephen make in vv. 40-41?

What did their ancestors do?

Right after Moses received “living oracles” to give to their ancestors he was rejected, not obeyed, pushed aside because in their hearts they longed for Egypt (v. 39). Worse, in vv. 40-41, they turned to actual idolatry, making a calf and offering sacrifice to an idol. They made a deity of human design and worshiped it. As opposed to worshiping the true God. So, Stephen here begins to drive at the distinction between true and false worship. Anything which has at its core something of human design is an idol which engenders false worship.

Now, what “works of their hands” were the Jews currently idolizing?

The temple, the humanly built temple

Verses 7:42-50

* What happens here?

* What does God do?

* Why?

Because of their idolatry God turned away from them and handed them over to worship the host of heaven (i.e., sun, moon, stars, -idols). God allowed them to reap the natural consequences of their idolatry. In worshiping a god who could not speak, could not lead, could not protect them, they cut themselves off from the only God who could help them.

In vv. 42b-43 Stephen quotes from the Greek translation of Amos 5:25-27.

What is this passage all about?

What question does v. 42b ask?

What’s the answer given?

What consequences are there?

Did Israelites offer sacrifices when they were in the wilderness? Yes they did, but they were offered to the wrong deities, to Moloch and Rephan (the Hebrew text speaks of Sakkuth and Kaiwan). Therefore, God will judge them by allowing them to be conquered and exiled to Babylon

In v. 43 Stephen plays on the term translated as “tent” (NRSV) or tabernacle (KJV, NASB). He’s saying that the Israelites carried the tabernacle of a pagan god in the wilderness, that their history is rife with idolatry.

* What point is Stephen making in vv. 44-47?

* Why didn’t they need the tent of Moloch?

* What had God given them?

Stephen is saying the Israelites had no excuse for their idolatry. They hadn’t needed the tent of Moloch because God had given them the “tent of testimony”, made according to the pattern God had passed along to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 25:8,40). This tent was brought into the Promised Land and was still in the land in the time of David.

What do you make of v. 46?

Why does Stephen speak of David seeking a dwelling place for the “house of Jacob?”

Stephen might be engaging in a bit of polemic here. Stephen’s audience things of the temple as the house where God dwells, but it is really just a house built for the house of Jacob, i.e., the Israelites. The temple was thought to be a place where God’s people could come and be with God and in this sense the temple was a house for them. Stephen doesn’t criticize this use of the temple and he doesn’t deny that God blessed and approved the building of the temple, but he denies that God meant it to be the idols that his hearers had made it.

How do vv. 48-50 further Stephen’s argument? What’s the point?

It’s not that God’s presence can’t be found in the temple. But, His presence can’t be confined there. Further, God can’t be controlled or manipulated by the building of a temple or by the rituals of the temple system or by the power moves of the temple hierarchy. What is being opposed is a God-in-the-box theology that suggests that if God can be located and confined, He can be manipulated and used to human ends. To attempt to mold or control God with human hands and according to human devices is idolatry.

Stephen is making clear that God does not dwell in the Jerusalem temple. He may visit there, but He doesn’t live there; He lives in Heaven. Central allegiance to a temple built with human hands puts Israel in danger of repeating its earlier wilderness sin, for the golden calf had also been made by “their hands”.

Verses 7:51-53

How does Stephen close his speech?

What charge does he bring against his hearers?

Stephen now uses extremely charged terms to describe his audience. Stiff-necked and uncircumcised were standard prophetic insults in the OT, meaning that the people were spiritually dead and unwilling to listen to the truth. Stephen is saying that his hearers, like their ancestors had rejected God’s messengers and, worse, had betrayed and killed the righteous One. And, rather than Stephen being the one guilty of breaking the law and blasphemy, it was they who were guilty.