Acts 7:1–53: As Your Fathers Did
Introduction
At first glance, it is difficult to see what Stephen’s speech has to do with the charges that are in view. Why doesn’t he respond to the allegations against him? Why does he use his time to give a running narration of the Old Testament history? Then, why does he shift from a benign rehearsal of Old Testament history into a jarring, abrupt denunciation of his accusers in vv. 51–53? In fact, Stephen’s speech is profoundly sophisticated as he subtly builds his case to respond to his critics and to charge them with an over-reliance on the land, the law, and the temple. Although the theme of this passage requires some work to uncover, Stephen’s meaning resounds clearly to this day: Jesus saves by faith, not by merely external religion.
Discussion Questions
1. What are the charges against Stephen (Acts 6:11–14)? How does Stephen respond to the charge of blaspheming the “place” of the holy land? How many locations outside Canaan does Stephen mention as places where God appeared or worked redemption for his people? How does Abraham’s lack of possession of “even a foot’s length” (v. 5) of Canaan relate to God’s goodness and power in relation to the land?
2. How does Stephen respond to the charge of blaspheming Moses and God? In what ways did God work in Moses’ life outside the land of Canaan? How did the patriarchs first reject Joseph, and then reject Moses? How did the rejection of Moses anticipate the coming Righteous One for whom Moses was only a type? How did Israel’s rejection of Moses extend into a rejection of God through idolatry?
3. How does Stephen respond to the charge of blaspheming the temple? How does Stephen emphasize God’s presence among his people in the “tent of witness in the wilderness” (v. 44)? How did the tabernacle move around outside of Jerusalem in the days of Joshua (v. 45)? Why is it significant that David may have moved the tabernacle to Jerusalem, but did not build the temple? What makes Solomon’s temple incapable of containing or limiting God?
4. How does this whole speech compare Stephen’s contemporaries with their fathers in ancient Israel? How might we see their insistence upon the land, the law, and the temple as grasping on to external religion rather than to serve the Lord through living, vibrant faith? In what way does Stephen’s charges against the Sanhedrin expose their need to repent and to believe in Jesus? Overall, do you think this speech was effective? Why or why not?
