Page 43 - Acts Student Textbook

The fact that Jesus had been predicted by Moses himself ought to have conclusively answered all the
charges made against Stephen by these people. Note that the prophecy said the people must listen
to this prophet (Jesus), but the Jewish people Stephen addressed had absolutely refused to listen to
Him. If Moses predicted Jesus and the people accepted Moses’ authority, then the people should
accept Jesus and stop opposing Stephen. While Stephen had not yet directly stated this conclusion, it
was clearly where he was leading.

How did Stephen connect the Jewish leaders to their ancestors? (7:50-53)

Stephen then brought his defense to a crashing climax — one that surely must have completely
caught the hearers unprepared. They thought he was defending himself to them — that he was on
trial before them. But Stephen turned the tables and showed that it was not he that was on trial, but
they were on trial before God. He was not the guilty one, but they were guilty. What a tremendous
method to use in teaching. Build a case from authority that the people accept, then show how their
evidence proves your case and shows them to be in error! Stephen convicted the Jewish leaders of
rebellion like their ancestors.

Stephen had laid the groundwork for this conclusion by showing that the Jewish ancestors had
repeatedly rejected God’s prophets. In fact, which one had they not rejected? Rather than itemizing
the ones rejected, could they find any to list that had been accepted in their lifetime (Cf. Neh. 9:20-
30; 2 Chron. 36:15,16; Luke 11:46-51; John 5:39-47.)? They had accused Stephen of seeking to
change Moses’ law (6:14). Now he said that in fact he was preaching what truly was in accord with
the law, but they were the ones who violated it by rejecting the One whom the law was preparing
them to receive!

What could be the summary of the facts presented by Stephen for his conclusion that Jesus was
the Messiah they should have accepted?

Firstly, God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. Secondly, Jesus
was the prophet whom Moses had predicted. Thirdly, other prophets had predicted Jesus. Fourthly,
the Jews had rejected Jesus, just like their nation throughout its history had rejected God’s prophets,
and just like those prophets had predicted they would do to the Messiah!

The Jews were often in error, yet God used them for His purpose. This purpose came to a climax in
Jesus. The rulers themselves then attacked Stephen (7:54).

What was the purpose of Stephen’s vision about Jesus standing at God’s right hand? (7:55, 56)

We are not told exactly why this vision of Jesus was given. No doubt it served to comfort Stephen in
his time of persecution. It probably also served to strengthen other Christians who heard about it.
And it may have cut even deeper in the consciences of those who opposed the truth. It surely would
have conflicted with the beliefs of his audience, for they believed Jesus to be a blasphemer who had
deserved to die.

Note that Jesus is here said to be standing at God’s right hand, where other passages say He sits at
God’s right hand. Some try to explain the difference. However, I don’t believe either expression is
intended to describe a literal position which Jesus occupies at all times. Why would He sit and never
stand? Why would He always be at one literal place? The idea is similar to saying a king sits on the
throne ruling a nation. Surely it does not mean he is there all the time; in fact, he probably spends
little time actually on the throne. The description is simply an expression to describe His exalted
position, more so than a literal location.

42