Who Do We Think We Are?

Transcription

1 Cole Community Church Growth Groups Leaders Guide for Acts 7: Week of December 30, Who Do We Think We Are? No harm can be done to the temple and the law, when Christ is openly established as the end and truth of both. John Calvin Introduction: This passage is sandwiched between the two texts that we studied four weeks ago, before the Advent break in December. They were the subject of the December 9 th sermon. In Acts 6:8 15 we saw Stephen charged before the Sanhedrin with religious crimes. In 7:54 60, we saw Stephen s martyrdom by the enraged mob of Jews. However, that week s study passed over Stephen s trial and defense, the answer he gave when the high priest presiding over the Sanhedrin asked, Are these things so? Stephen, in the longest discourse in Acts, responded to the charges by turning them on his accusers: they were the ones really disobeying God because they rejected his appointed leader. Q. 1. What were the charges against Stephen? (Refer back to Acts 6:11, ) To the serious Jews on the Sanhedrin, there are two very serious charges. 1. He spoke against the customs that Moses delivered (i.e., the Law) and 2. He spoke against the holy place (i.e., the Temple). v. 6:11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God. vv. 6:13 14, and they set up false witnesses who said, This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us. (ESV) Page 1 of 6

2 Q. 2. Did Stephen deny saying the things the false witnesses accused him of saying? No. If Stephen denied his teaching, he would appear to deny Christ; if he confirmed his teaching, he would admit to teachings that the Sanhedrin believed to be blasphemy. Stephen did not defend himself by trying to prove that he did not say the words that he was accused of saying. He could not recant his teaching any more the Peter and John or the Apostles could recant what they had taught when they came before the Sanhedrin (vv. 4: and 5:40). He does not even try to explain how the false witnesses against him have twisted the meaning of his teaching. False accusations often begin with a small degree of truth. John Stott points out that Jesus taught that the temple would be superseded (Mark 14:57, John 2:20 21) and the law fulfilled (Matt. 5:17). Stephen was speaking with wisdom and the spirit (v. 6:10), so he was speaking the message of Jesus had taught. Stephan s point is that what he teaches is confirmation of the Scripture s promise. (Remember, at this time Scripture only meant the Old Testament.) To the priests and scribes on the Sanhedrin, this would have seemed to be speaking against the temple and the laws exactly the blasphemy Stephen stands accused of committing. In short, he rejects teachings that were foundational to both the (temple oriented) Sadducees and the (law bound) Pharisees of the Sanhedrin. Q. 3. So, what was Stephen's defense? (Verse 53.) [Y]ou who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. (v. 53.) Stephen had been charged with speaking against God and the temple and against Moses and the law. His defense is that history proves the opposite: it is Israel as a people and its leaders who have stiffened their necks against God and resisted the Holy Spirit. Stephen launches into an historical summary of Israel s long and sorry history of failure. They persecuted the prophets of God, and they killed Jesus the Son of God, and now they are about to kill a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit. They are the ones who need to give an account, not Stephen. Page 2 of 6

3 Q. 4. How does Stephen use the history of Israel to accuse his judges? Consider Abraham (vv. 2 8). Joseph (vv. 9 16). Moses (vv ). The tent and the temple. (vv ). Abraham (vv. 2 8). Stephen made a very pointed unspoken contrast. He reminded the Sanhedrin that Abraham, their father, was a man of faith who had dared to make changes in obedience to God. He left his country and even his father's house and went out into a land he had never seen before. The nation of Israel owed its existence to God s promise to make a great nation out of Abraham s descendants and to give them the land of Canaan. If Abraham had been unwilling to recognize God s working, he could never have become the father of Israel. Stephen accuses the Sanhedrin of similar unwillingness to see God s working even though they had witnessed the amazing works and miracles just described in the preceding chapters of Acts. Joseph (vv. 9 16). Stephen contrasted Joseph with these men of the Sanhedrin, who refuse to obey God simply because it would mean some changes in their lives. Joseph went through constant change, and yet God honored him. Joseph was a man of faith who obeyed God and because he did, God fulfilled his word to Joseph. Note to leaders. Many commentators spend time and printer s ink explaining why, in verse 16, Stephen says patriarchs were buried in a tomb purchased by Abraham in Shechem when Genesis says that Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah near Hebron. They offer entirely plausible, but lengthy, explanations. However, this is a distraction for our discussion of how Stephen responds to the high priest s question. Moses (vv ). Since Stephen was charged with blaspheming Moses, he spent more of his answer specifically addressing Moses. He reminded them that Moses had failed when he walked by the sight of his own eyes and in the wisdom of his own mind. Then God appeared and empowered him and taught him the proper source of strength and authority. Only after that did God send Moses back to be a ruler and deliverer. But despite God s grace, Israel rebelled against God and his servant Moses in the wilderness. They turned back to Egypt in their hearts (v. 39) and worshiped the golden calf. God gave the nation up to their idolatry, so that later they worshiped the false gods of Canaan (vv ). Page 3 of 6

4 Most notably Stephen said, This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers (v. 37). This, of course, would be Jesus, the prophet whom Moses predicted (see Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22). Yet Jesus is the one the Sanhedrin rejected. The Israelites rejected Moses; the priests and scholars of the Sanhedrin rejected God s Appointed One. They are following exactly the course of their fathers. It is they, not Stephen, who fail to understand the scriptural message fulfilled. Thus, Stephen refuted the charge that he spoke against the teachings of Moses. The tent and the temple. (vv ) In verse 44, Stephen turned to the charge made against him regarding the temple (6: 12 14). He contrasted the tabernacle (or tent) with the temple. The temple is not necessary for God s purposes, for in the wilderness God directed the construction of the tabernacle (Ex. 25: 40). In distinction from the temple, it was movable, and it contained the witness, the stone tablets inscribed with God s law. It continued as Israel s place of worship through the period of the conquest on down to the time of David, who was the first to request a temple (2 Sam. 7: 1 17). It was built by his son, Solomon. His point, in verse 48, was not to make too much of the temple, Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands. Again, Stephen turns the charges against his accusers. It is they who have made too much of Temple worship and sacrifice, turning it from worship to mere empty legalism devoid of meaning. Note how Stephen turned to the Jewish scripture to prove a point about the truth of Jesus Gospel message: The Jews then said, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days? But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. John 2:20 21 (ESV) Thus, Stephen refuted the charge that he spoke against the temple. Page 4 of 6

5 Q. 5. See vv The priests and scribes -- being scholars of the Scriptures -- might well have agreed with much of Stephen s argument. The Old Testament certainly recounts a history of a stiffnecked people who rejected God and his commandments. But, verse 54 tells us they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. What about Stephen s defense would have so enraged them? Stephen asked priests, scholars and scribes of the Jewish elite to look into the mirror of Israel s history and see themselves. Even after all the signs, wonders, miracles and massive conversions that had recently occurred around them in Jerusalem, they could not or would not do this. Stephen s argument angered them. Stephen accused the Sanhedrin itself of the same offenses as the earlier Israelites committed against God; they betrayed God and killed his Messiah. In Acts 7:51 53 Steven draws his conclusion from this history: You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. (ESV) These are strong words! By insulting and enraging his judges, Stephen probably sealed his own fate. This might also explain why Stephen s consequence was so much more severe than that imposed on Peter and John when they were brought before the same judges. Q. 6. Stephen adapted his argument to his Jewish audience. He addressed the Jewish Sanhedrin with an argument based on Jewish Scripture and beliefs well known to his audience. Luke s book (written several decades after the events Luke describes) is addressed to Gentiles, like Theophilus, yet Luke gave Stephen s discourse the longest text of any discourse in Acts. What lessons do you think Luke saw in Stephen s sermon that are particularly relevant to Christian believers who, like most of us, were of non-jewish background? How does it apply in America today? Page 5 of 6

6 Leaders, allow your group to explore this question on their own. There is not one correct answer. But here are some thoughts to offer if your group is stuck. 1. Unity of the Old and New Testament. Stephen s speech serves Luke s audience because Gentiles of Luke s time would be unfamiliar with the Jewish Scriptures. To fully understand the Gospel message that Luke began in his first book, the Gospel of Luke, it was critical for these new believers to become grounded in the text we now call the Old Testament. Jesus himself had made the same point on the road to Emmaus, And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27). For believers today, Stephens speech serves to remind us that the Old Testament teachings remain critically important. The Old Testament is not superseded or irrelevant to today s church. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). From Cole Community Church s Doctrinal Statement: (John 14:16 26; 16:5 11) The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice. 2. Our identity as Christians. By asking the leaders and scholars of Israel to look into the mirror of history and showing them that they were like the Israelites who turned from God, Stephen challenged their own self-image. Their pride in being both the spiritual and secular elite of Jewish society blinded them to their sinful nature. Stephen s challenge attacked this comfortable opinion of themselves and suggested something more unpleasant. They reacted, as we all do, when our view of ourselves is called into question. They became angry. Luke challenges to us to do what the Sanhedrin could not or would not do. That is to examine ourselves against Biblical standards. Who do we think we are? What nouns or adjectives would you use to describe yourself? Would they be secular words? Would they reflect your nationality? Your family status? Your profession? Your politics? Your hobbies? Your favorite sports team? How much do these selfimages influence your actions and behaviors? Do you convey a Christ-like image to others? Do you identify first as a Christian? Do you behave like one? tvs Page 6 of 6