Jun 08, 2014
Acts 7:1-16
Download Audio:
Outline:
As Acts 6 closes we find Stephen in a precarious situation. Following a heated debate with members of the “Synagogue of the Freedmen,” he is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin to be tried for speaking blasphemy against Moses, the Law, their religious customs, and the Temple.
And while these were serious allegations, we understand that, even before Stephen is even given a chance to present a rebuttal, his innocence is obvious to everyone present:
First, everyone knew the witnesses that were accusing Stephen of such things were not credible. Luke tells us the men who were offended by the truth Stephen spoke “secretly induced men” to be “false witnesses” before “they stirred up the people.” In a very real sense Stephen stood before a kangaroo court.
Secondly, if the credibility of the accusers weren’t enough, God miraculously affirmed Stephen’s character and demonstrated His approval of his message.
Luke closes the chapter by telling us that “all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.” In much the same way as Moses’ heavenly countenance had validated the Old Covenant, Stephen’s served to validate the New. You can imagine that as Stephen gets up to finally present his defense before the court, he had everyone’s clear and undivided attention.
Acts 7:1, “Then the high priest (who is Caiaphas) said, “Are these things so?”
Though the high priest is interested in hearing Stephen’s response to the accusations that have just been levied against him, you need to understand that Stephen’s response will not seek to justify his actions or defend himself against these falsehoods.
Since God had already affirmed his innocence and approved his message, Stephen will instead use the opportunity to speak truth directly into the lives of these religious leaders.
To accomplish this task Stephen will present for them an honest recounting of their history in order to illustrate 5 key lessons.
Lesson #1: In presenting the framework of Abraham’s relationship with God, Stephen illustrates that faith in Jesus was consistent with the life God had called them to live.
Lesson #2: In presenting the patriarch’s interactions with Joseph, Stephen illustrates that God used their rejection of Jesus to exalt Him to a position of Savior.
Lesson #3: In presenting their rejection of Moses, Stephen illustrates that the Jews trusted God not Moses to deliver them.
Lesson #4: Stephen will explain that their rejection of Jesus was based in their misguided reliance on the religious formalities of the Law, their customs, and Temple.
Lesson #5 (and it’s a consistent theme throughout his sermon): Based on the pattern of Israel’s history, though they had initially rejected Jesus, if these men simply stopped resisting the Spirit God was more than willing to give them a second chance.
Before we dive into Stephen’s recounting of Jewish history, we should take a moment and address a controversy often associated with Acts 7.
Since Stephen includes in his sermon additional historical details not included in the OT text, some have pointed to these “discrepancies” as being evidence of a much larger, more systemic problem when it comes to trusting the historical veracity of Scripture.
And while it is undeniable that Stephen does adds a few details we do not have recorded anywhere else in the Bible, these critics fail to recognize one important point: Adding to a story isn’t in and of itself proof of some kind of textual inconsistency as long as the new detail doesn’t contradict what has already been recorded as truth.
Though not in the OT these new details can be trusted for two reasons:
1. The religious leaders never challenge the historical accuracy of Stephen’s sermon. Though they would object to his conclusion, it would seem these religious leaders accepted the non-Biblical details of Stephen’s sermon as being factually accurate. It would appear these details had been recorded in many of the additional historical manuscripts we know existed during this period of Jewish history.
2. The Holy Spirit allowed these new details to be included in inspired Scripture. Because Stephen spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit and with the reality that his sermon will be later included in Scripture, we understand that in a larger sense the Holy Spirit is actually the one adding these new details to the historical record.
Lesson #1: In presenting the framework of Abraham’s relationship with God, Stephen illustrates that faith in Jesus was consistent with the life God had called them to live.
Acts 7:2-8, “And Stephen said, “Brethren and fathers, listen (Stephen identifies with and is respectful of his audience): The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.’ Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, He moved him to this land in which you now dwell.”
“And God gave him no inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot on. But even when Abraham had no child, He promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his descendants after him. But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years. ‘And the nation to whom they will be in bondage I will judge,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and serve Me in this place.’ Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs.”
Examine the framework of Abraham’s relationship with God.
1. Abraham’s relationship with God was based in unmerited favor.
It’s interesting, but while Abraham will come to be one of the most pivotal and important men in all the Bible (mentioned some 290 times, founded the Hebrew nation, is called the “Friend of God,” and viewed as the “Father of Faith”), Scripture never actually indicates why God chose Abraham in the first place.
In vs. 2 Stephen avoids providing clarity concerning this topic by simply echoing the general OT backdrop, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham.” In addition, the prophet Isaiah 51:1-2 and the author of Hebrews 11:8 will simply inform their readers that “Abraham was called” by God.
Though we don’t know the ultimate reason why Abraham was chosen, Scripture is clear on two important realities (1) God was the one who initiated contact with Abraham, and (2) There is no evidence that Abraham had done anything to necessitate God’s calling and favor.
The only detail we have concerning the life of Abraham before his initial encounter with God seems to indicate the opposite reality. In Joshua 24:2, “Thus says the LORD God: “Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham… dwelt on the other side of the River in old times; and they served other gods.”
While God chose Noah because he was found to be a righteous man, the same cannot be said concerning Abraham. According to Scripture, Abraham was a pagan idolater. This reference to “other gods” indicates he was originally polytheistic.
You see Stephen begins by reminding these religious leaders that the fundamental basis for Abraham’s relationship with God was not some intrinsic righteousness or inherent goodness, but instead God’s unmerited favor.
2. The only necessary requirement for Abraham to fully enjoy the unmerited favor God had graciously bestowed upon him would be his total obedience.
While Stephen doesn’t go into detail concerning all of the things God had promised Abraham and his descendants, Stephen does make it clear that these things were conditioned upon his obedience. According to vs. 3 God commanded him to “Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.”
Though Abraham done nothing to earn God’s favor, total obedience would be the only way he could enjoy this favor. Once again Hebrews 11:8 tells us “Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance… not knowing where he was going.”
In order to hammer home the importance of this point, Stephen includes an interesting detail concerning Abraham’s calling not found in the original Genesis account.
In the original account of this story recorded in Genesis 11:31-12:4 we’re told that, “Terah took his son Abram… his grandson Lot… and his daughter-in-law Sarai… and they went out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there. So the days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you…” So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was 75 years old when he departed from Haran.”
And yet, Stephen begins, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.’”
According to the narrative in Genesis 11, Terah unexplainably decides to move his family from “Ur of the Chaldeans” to the land of Canaan only to end up settling in the city of “Haran” before ultimately dying. Then, according to Genesis 12, following Terah’s death, God speaks to Abraham in Haran and instructs him to “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you.” However, Stephen tells us that God “appeared to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.” In addition Nehemiah 9:7 also affirms Stephen point that “God, chose Abram, and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans.”
While some have tried to use this discrepancy in order to discredit Stephen’s account, a better explanation would be that God simply gave Abraham the same instructions on two separate occasions. The first occurring when God appeared to Abraham as he was living in “Ur of the Chaldeans.” With the second taking place immediately following Terah’s death in Haran (where we have no mention of God appearing to Abraham, only speaking).
What is significant about this detail is that in both instances God’s instructions for Abraham centered upon the same two phrases: “get out of / from” and “come to.” When God first appeared to Abraham (while he was living in Ur) He command that he “get out of his country and from his relatives” and “come to a land that He would show him,” however, it would appear Abraham was only partially obedient. In leaving Ur, Abraham was “getting out of his country,” but in refusing to leave behind his father Abraham had failed to “get out from his relatives.”
What resulted in his partial obedience is that Abraham found himself stuck in Haran far away from the land God had promised to give him. According to both Genesis and Acts, it would only be upon the death of Terah that God would speak again to Abraham giving a second chance to obey the same original instructions.
Stephen point is simple… God’s work in Abraham’s life and his ability to enjoy all that God had for him was completely dependent upon whether or not Abraham would full obey God’s instructions.
3. Even after receiving God’s unmerited favor and then finally demonstrating obedience by coming into the land, Abraham would have to place his entire faith in the reality that God would make good on His promises even when there was no evidence.
Stephen points out in vs. 5, “Even when Abraham had no child, God promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his descendants after him.”
Because of the unmerited favor God demonstrated in calling him out of Ur and the incredible grace God showed in providing him a second chance to be obedient, Abraham came to realize that his relationship with God and his obedience to God relied entirely on his faith in God. Over time Abraham learned to trust that God would be faithful to fulfill His promises.
Though these religious men took pride in being descendants of Abraham, they completely overlooked the example Abraham had set for them. This is why Stephen points out in vs. 8 that it was only after Abraham had come to terms with the necessity of faith that “God gave him the covenant of circumcision.”
Circumcision (“act of cutting away the flesh”) was instituted by God to be a physical reminder of the covenant He had made with Abraham. Circumcision, as an enduring symbol, intended to communicate that, like Abraham, a person’s favor and standing before God was based in faith, not the flesh.
Please keep in mind that these religious leaders rejected Jesus because they rejected His message of grace (unmerited favor) through faith. And yet, Stephen eloquently and poignantly points out that the very framework of Abraham’s relationship with God actually substantiated Jesus’ message.
Lesson #2: In presenting the patriarch’s interactions with Joseph, Stephen illustrates that God had actually used their rejection of Jesus to exalt Him to a position of Savior.
Acts 7:9-16, “And the patriarchs (12 sons of Jacob), becoming envious, sold Joseph (the favorite son of Jacob) into Egypt. But God was with him and delivered him out of all his troubles, and gave him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house (the incredible ascension of Joseph is recorded in Genesis 38-41).”
“Now a famine and great trouble came over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and our fathers found no sustenance. But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first (as recorded in Genesis 42 Jacob sends the 11 remaining sons to Egypt and while Joseph recognizes his brother they do not recognize him). And the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers (recorded in Genesis 43-45), and Joseph’s family became known to the Pharaoh. Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people (Genesis 46 says they settled in Goshen). So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers. And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.”
Consider the similarities between Joseph and Jesus…
As the cherished son of their father both men were rejected and treated with utter contempt by their brethren for one simple reason… Envy. According to Matthew 27:18 even Pilate “knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.”
But we’re told that in both instances “God was with them,” “delivered them out of all their troubles,” and ultimately used the very thing meant for harm to exalt each man into a position of power for the purpose of saving the world from coming destruction.
It’s as though Stephen is telling these men… “You rejected Jesus and sentenced Him to death just as the patriarchs did with Joseph. But what you’ve failed to realize is that in the same way God still worked in the life of Joseph, He has used your rejection of Jesus to set the circumstances by which He might be exalted into the same position of Savior.”
And if that reality weren’t amazing enough… As illustrated by the interactions between the patriarchs and Joseph, even the men who were guilty of the initial crime were still afforded the same opportunity to benefit from the exalted Savior!
This morning may you glean from these two important lessons…
1. As illustrated by Abraham, the key to a relationship with God is to first accept His unmerited favor, and then accept that your relationship with God and your obedience to God rely entirely on your faith in God.
2. And, like the patriarchs of old, may we all come to the understanding that though it was because of our sins that Jesus suffered and died, it was also for these very sins that Jesus was also exalted to be our Savior.