Visitors: 148967

INTRODUCTION

In order to reach the world with the gospel, which is what every Christian is called to do we must learn how to defend and present our faith to others. We can do that by looking at Stephen's defence of the Faith in chapter 7 of this book. 

Remember last time we saw that Stephen's opponents were unable to get the better of him in open debate, so they accused him falsely of blasphemy and brought him before the Sanhedrin for trial. Now Stephen gets the chance to defend the faith, which he was preaching and his defence is based on the Old Testament Scriptures.

He knew the truth and knew why he believed it and therefore he is able to defend his faith and showed his commitment to it with unwavering courage.

Now while the main thrust of Stephen's defence was to answer the charges of blasphemy made against him he does so in such a way that he is able to hold his listeners' attention. He does that reciting Israel's history as the groundwork for his defence since the Sanhedrin were fiercely proud of their history. But Stephen then moves from the Old Testament to Jesus by showing that by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah they were imitating their forefathers who rejected Joseph, Moses and God Himself.

Now I am not going to look at his defence in great detail as we have already read it, but I will hopefully outline his defence and then focus on his application or conclusion, which comes right at the end of his defence.

1. GOD'S HISTORICAL PLAN (vs. 1-16).

Stephen deals first of all with the blasphemy of God accusation made against him. He states clearly that he believes in the God of Israel and that Christianity does not abolish the Old Covenant but fulfils it. Stephen is asked by the High Priest if the charges are true (v 1), in order words how do you plead Stephen guilty or not guilty?

It appears that Stephen does not give a direct answer to that question, but he uses it to proclaim the Christian message and accuses the Jewish leaders of failing to recognise Jesus as their Messiah or to accept the salvation he gives. But I think it will become clear that in doing so he is also showing that he is not guilty of such an accusation.

Stephen uses a lengthy historical summary to make his case. His purpose was to show that the Messiah and the Christian faith that he preached were the perfect fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He traces God's purposes from Abraham, through to Isaac Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David to the Lord Jesus as the Righteous One (v 52).

It was the God of glory who called Abraham from his native land in Mesopotamia and promised the possession of Canaan to him and his descendants (vs. 4-6). This of course was promised when he had no land or children. What Stephen is doing here is showing his accusers that he believes in the sovereignty of the God of Abraham and acknowledged the fatherhood of Abraham over all Israel.

He is testifying that he was neither a blasphemer of God nor a traitor to his people. It amounted to a not guilty plea.

Stephen follows the flow of salvation history by showing that God's sovereign control of Israel's destiny continued with the succeeding generations, as God reaffirmed the covenant made with Abraham to his descendants (v 8). But then Stephen introduces a disturbing note for the Patriarchs proved something of a disappointment (vs. 9-16). They were jealous of their teenage brother Joseph and sold him as a slave into Egypt.

Irony of all ironies when famine struck the whole area it was the heathen thanks to Joseph who had food but and here Stephen drives a nail into his audience conscience "our fathers could not find food" (v 11).

But God was gracious and provided relief and a home in Egypt through the very son they had despised and abused many years before. God showed up the brothers' bad attitude by turning their victim into the vehicle of undeserved blessings. What Stephen once again is doing is laying the groundwork for his stinging attack upon the religious leaders in verses 51-53. 

Just as Joseph's brothers rejected Joseph so the religious leaders and the Jews in general had rejected Jesus as their Messiah. However the irony is that the One that they are rejecting is the One that is able to provide salvation for them just as Joseph was the Saviour of his people during the famine.

2. GOD'S DEALINGS WITH MOSES (vs. 17-43).

Having just defended himself against the charge of blaspheming God, Stephen now moves on to the second charge rejecting Moses. He shows that just as he reveres God he also honours Moses and once again pleads not guilty to the charge made against him. Time went by says Stephen and time came for God to fulfil his promise to Abraham (v 17 cf. Genesis 15:16).

By this time Israel had grown from the original 75 who came to Egypt in Joseph's day to a very sizeable nation. They had however been reduced to slavery and were forced to throw out their newborn babies to die (v 19).

God however had not forgotten them and raised up Moses to be their Saviour and deliverer and over the space of 40 years He first of all prepared Moses and then He employed Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt to the very threshold of the Promised Land (vs. 20-34). What Stephen is doing in this section is contrasting God's goodness through his servant Moses with the repeated hostility of their forefathers (vs. 25, 35).

Stephen quotes Exodus 32:1 to show that they turned from God to idolatry during the Sinai wanderings (v 40). Then he gently reminds them that this was no isolated occurrence in their long history. He quotes Amos 5:25-27 (v 43) to show that what started at Sinai culminated in the Babylonian Exile some eight centuries later!

The question that Stephen is raising is this: who has really blasphemed against Moses and against God? Stephen implies the obvious answer, His accusers and their forefathers were guilty not Stephen or His Saviour. History proves that what happened to Jesus and to Stephen had happened before, those who thought they were representing God turned out to be opposing Him.

It is at this point in his defence that Stephen begins to preach Christ to his hearers. Moses was indeed the deliverer from God (vs. 25, 35) but he saw himself as the forerunner to the promised Messiah (v 38 quoting Deuteronomy 18:15).

Stephen again invites his audience to draw the obvious conclusion; if they rejected the prophet whom Moses foretold and who Peter and Stephen and many others were now proclaiming (Acts 3:22-23), then who are the ones that are really guilty of blasphemy against Moses. It was not Stephen who disobeyed the law given to Moses but his forefathers, the very forefathers that the Sanhedrin revered. Stephen did not reject Moses but it was his forefathers who rejected Moses and the law given to him. The hearts of his forefathers turned back to Egypt (v 39) instead of obeying Moses.

Amazingly even though they had been severely oppressed in Egypt they looked back with fondness, it was as if they had forgotten their ill treatment (Numbers 11:5). The past always seems more attractive when we look back that it did at the time.

3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEMPLE (vs. 55-60).

Having dealt with the first two charges about blasphemy against God and Moses, Stephen goes on to the next one mainly his rejection of the temple (6:13-14). He warmly acknowledges the divine institution of the tabernacle and its successor, the temple built by Solomon (vs. 44-47). Far from being against the temple Stephen is very much aware of its meaning and significance.

God he said does not live in houses made by men (v 48) because as he said through the prophet Isaiah "heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool" (v 49 cf. Isaiah 66:1-2). Stephen had already shown from Scripture that God's covenant promise made to His people promising to be with them and to redeem them had been in place before the temple had ever been built. In highlighting the essential spirituality of the temple Stephen was quietly suggesting that the temple was part of God's plan.

He is proposing that the covenant promise to redeem His people would be fulfilled not through Temple ritual but through God's Messiah whose body (temple) would be destroyed and raised to life again three days later. But sadly this true Prophet, who was foretold by Moses, has been rejected by the people and with their rejection of Him they were rejecting their hope of redemption.

4. APPLICATION OF STEPHEN'S DEFENCE (vs. 51-53).

Now right at the end of his sermon Stephen makes a very pointed application. It is really the conclusion of his defence and his reasoning so far leads to only one possible conclusion the one he makes (vs. 51-53). Stephen does not leave the Sanhedrin to draw their own conclusion they were incapable of that, so Stephen sets it out for them in very clear terms. This chapter is no mere legal defence at Stephen's trial but a clear proclamation of the truth of God. Stephen in his conclusion is passing sentence on his accusers. In doing so he is exposing the empty formalism of the religion of his accusers and pricking the consciences of his enemies with such clarity of truth that they could not deny but that they could not ultimately escape from.

His conclusion is that it was these religious leaders and not Stephen who were guilty of blasphemy against God, Moses and the temple worship. In this conclusion Stephen outlines for us the basic characteristics of a lifeless nominal Christianity that sadly is so common today. He also leaves us with a clear example of what it means to confront the world today with the gospel by exposing its real condition and needs before God.

Let us consider what we might call the five points of formalism.

a) Stubborn Hearts That Are Unwilling To Repent (v 51) - These religious leaders were just like their forefathers that God judged in previous generations as outlined in Stephen's sermon. They are described as a "stiff-necked people," stubborn people holding on to their error, and their self-righteousness rather than embracing the gospel through true repentance. We find this stubbornness in churches today and in our own society in general. People have their own ideas of God and religion and even when they are challenged by the true Gospel and come to understand the truth of that gospel, people would rather be stubborn and hold on to what they hope is right rather than embrace what is right.

Even when people come to believe that the gospel is right they still choose to go their own selfish and self righteous ways rather than face up to their sin and admit that they are in error. Unbelief is extremely stubborn, it will not be moved it is extremely proud and the only thing that will break down such stubborn hearts is the gospel preached with the power of the Holy Spirit and prayer. I wonder do we believe that.

Do our own lives testify to that fact? Does our own prayer life reflect our understanding of the stubbornness of people's hearts? Do we seek under God to share the gospel with people but do so in such a way that we acknowledge the need for the Holy Spirit to work in people's hearts? We do not have the ability or gifts to break down stubborn and selfish and self-righteous hearts.

Perhaps there is someone today who over the weeks and years that you have been coming to this church has come to understand the gospel and of your need to accept it, but you are far too stubborn to do so. You do not want to lose face because you thought you were a Christian or others thought you were and your pride is stopping you from trusting in Christ.

Biblical history is full as Stephen has shown us with such people but please do not add to that list, your eternal destiny is at stake, humble yourself before God, call out to Him for mercy and get right with God. Forget about your own pride or other people all that matters ultimately is that you are right with God, that you have your sins forgiven and that you have received new life in Christ.

b) An Exclusively Outward Form of Religion - They are described as being people who have "uncircumcised hearts and ears" (v 51). In other words their religion is all outward, it does not affect their hearts, their sin has never been cut off (circumcised) and their ears have never been opened to the truth of God's gospel.

They were religious and followers of God but only on the outside, inside they were self-righteous and selfish and proud. They needed to have a change of heart they needed to be transformed within, they needed what Jesus called being born again (John 3:7). Now it is sad but there are many people who go to church today whose religion is external, it is formal but their hearts are left unaffected.

There are whole churches that are merely external churches, they adhere to a very traditional formal procedure of religion but their hearts remain unmoved. They enjoy the seriousness of their formality but they do not think about the seriousness of their sin or their need to be made right with God.

They think that mere formalism pleases God that their religious rituals will please God and therefore make God look upon them favourable. But of course some of Jesus fiercest attacks were launched against the mere formal religious leaders of his day, they were all clean on the outside with formal religion but rotten on the inside.

Even in evangelical churches there are people who come to church because for them their religion is all formality. They might like the informality of independent churches like our own, but as far as their religion is concerned, it is all about doing their duty, giving to the church and pleasing God by their attendance and good works. They listen to the sermons but they remained unmoved, their hope is based on a religious routine every Sunday but such people are just like the people that Stephen is accusing of blasphemy for they have no changed heart. These religious leaders thought they were pleasing God by their formal religion but how wrong they were as Stephen has shown us from his survey of the Old Testament.

My dear friends if you are not born again, if your heart is unaffected by the grace of God then you might impress yourself or others with your formality but you do not impress God. You must repent, and seek God to transform and change your heart by the power of the Holy Spirit.

c) A Natural Resistance to the Work of the Holy Spirit (v 51) - Stephen says that the Sanhedrin who he stood before were people who instinctively and wilfully resist the Holy Spirit in their hearts. The Holy Spirit accompanies the word of God and He impresses it upon our consciences.

But because unbelievers are naturally opposed to God and His word they will not accept God's truth in fact they cannot accept it, for God's word seems foolishness to them because they need spiritual discernment, which only the Holy Spirit can give (1 Corinthians 2:14). However they resist his prompting and continue in their unbelief. Have you ever been prompted by the Holy Spirit to accept the message of the gospel? Have you ever resisted His work upon your conscience?

O you may not know that it was the Holy Spirit you may have heard the gospel and been moved by it, even giving mental accent to it, but in your heart you have refused to repent and trust in Christ. That is a sign that you have resisted the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore your religion is formal and outward rather than transforming and internal.

d) A Rejection to the Work of Jesus Christ (v 52) - The religious leaders and their forefathers rejected the Righteous One who is the very One to whom all the Scriptures pointed. But the religious leaders refused to come to Him for salvation and they do not want him as their Lord. This point more than all the rest shows the true state of our religion. How do we respond to Jesus Christ?

Do we respond in repentance and acceptable or do we continue to refuse to seek Him for salvation and plead to him for mercy. Do we still think that our good works and our religious rituals and our moral values will some now be good enough for God? If that is what you think then you are sadly mistaken because the bible makes it clear that none of us are righteous before a Holy God and none of us can do anything that will impress God.

All we can do is plead for mercy because God has done all that needs to be done through Jesus Christ and through His death and resurrection. Will you do that today or will you continue to reject God's Saviour and God's salvation, which is found in Jesus Christ alone?

e) A Disobedient Attitude to the Law of God (v 53) - Peter's final point is very simple. He has proved through his defence that God's people continually disobeyed God's law and will for their lives and these religious leaders were doing the same thing. They were simply ignoring the parts of Scripture that they did not like or could not stomach and they changed God's word to suit their own ideas.

That goes on today too. How many churches do you know that reject the word of God and change it to suit their ideas of religion? All liberal churches do that and all religious people do that and sadly even some professing Christians do that. You see the test for us all as I conclude is do we obey God's word. By that I mean do we obey all God's word or do we only obey the parts that we like or the parts that fit into our own ideas or lifestyle. I think most of us are not as strong at obeying all God's word as we profess to be.

So often what we say we believe and our practise of those beliefs are not consistent. We believe the bible to be the word of God yet how often do we neglect to read it and how often do we fail to obey it. We believe that Jesus Christ is the head of His church, yet does the way we treat His church reflect that truth? Are we ever guilty of treating his church with contempt?

I think the reality for many of us might be that our religion is more formal and outward than we might like to believe. It's not just unbelievers who need to repent but sadly many professing believers need to repent because of our mere formality. We need to ask God by His Spirit to help us again to live our Christian faith in the power of the Spirit rather than by the power of the flesh.

So Stephen leaves his audience with a clear message. He is not the one who is blaspheming God, or rejecting Moses or the Temple, but it is his accusers who are doing so. They can repent and turn to Christ and find the life giving Spirit or they will perish in their sins. That is the choice that we have this morning. Repent or Perish. I trust that God by his grace will enable you to repent.

Amen