THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 17, Chapter 7
The final words of our last lesson were meant to prepare us for today’s teaching in Acts
chapter 7. Here we find Stephen, full of grace and power, standing before the Sanhedrin with a
mob of angry Jews wanting to lynch him for supposedly blaspheming Moses, God and the
Temple. We were told in Chapter 6 that Stephen had gotten into an argument with members of
the Synagogue of the Freedmen (no doubt over doctrine) and they simply couldn’t compete
with or refute his wisdom, nor could they match the authority with which He spoke because if
was not a fair fight: he had the Holy Spirit and they didn’t.
How many in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movement have tried diligently, patiently,
lovingly to show Bible teachers, professors, Pastors and Elders, Rabbis, even Believing friends
and family members what God’s Word so plainly says about a number of important subjects
that are central to a correct understanding of our faith; only to face anger and accusations of
heresy when these religious leaders have no defensible response to explain their dubious
doctrines. Thus Acts Chapter 6 verses 10 and 11 explain that because those Stephen tried to
persuade had no defensible response to Stephens teaching, they retaliated by using false
witnesses to fling false accusations against Stephen. However in the name of intellectual
honesty, it is also the case in the Biblical era that witnesses can be called false not for lying,
but rather when it is discovered that they did not witness the actual event, are presenting
second hand evidence or hearsay, and thus their testimony is disqualified. We can’t be 100%
certain that the latter isn’t the case, but we can be 99.9% certain that it is not, because it is
inconceivable that Stephen actually suggested that Yeshua (who is dead) would destroy the
Temple, or that Stephen denied Moses.
As Stephen is being interrogated we are told that his face began to glow like that of an angel.
This compares with what happened to Moses as he descended from Mt. Sinai after a close
encounter with God. So Luke’s idea in including this bit of information (that otherwise adds
nothing to the narrative) is to show that God was present with Stephen and that what Stephen
was about to say in response to the questioning is divinely inspired.
Let’s read Acts chapter 7, the longest continuous speech by anyone in the Book of Acts.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 7 all
Verse 1 specifies who is questioning Stephen; it is the High Priest who at this time was
Caiaphas. Because the High Priest doubles as the head of the Sanhedrin, it is his prerogative
to lead the questioning of the accused if he chooses to do so. And the question is: “Are these
accusations true?” The response of Stephen is long and doesn’t really address the question
directly. Why didn’t he just say “no”, or perhaps explain that the charges were exaggerated or
greatly distorted from what he had said? We need to keep at the forefront of our minds as we
view this story that the false accusers were from a local Synagogue. Thus while they
1 / 8

occasionally visited the Temple for sacrifice and ceremony, their main allegiance and the place
where they received their religious doctrines was their Synagogue. So was it really so
upsetting to them that Stephen supposedly said something against the Temple? Yes and no;
the matter of the Temple we will discuss shortly in a way you won’t expect. But the primary
issue was their claim that he was blaspheming Moses. What they meant by blaspheming
Moses was that to dispute their Traditions was blasphemy. And this was because the
Traditions (also called Oral Torah) that were rabbinical interpretations of the written Torah of
Moses, was the epicenter of the Synagogue and whatever it was that Stephen said they took it
as an assault on those cherished Traditions.
Essentially Stephen was charged with teaching against everything that Judaism stood for.
We’ve spent much time in trying to understand the place and nature of the Synagogue in New
Testament times, but we need to also remember the nature of Judaism at this same time.
Before Babylon, Jewish life and religion sought direction from the Temple; that was the God-
ordained way and it was generally the only source available. It was the Priests and Levites job
to (among other things) teach the people the Law of Moses and then to enforce it. If we were to
invent a name to call the body of teachings and the way of life that the Priests taught we could
rightly label it Hebrew-ism. That is, the civil code for the Hebrews with its rules and regulations
was essentially the Torah itself. And it was to be followed by all Hebrews since it was given by
God at Mt. Sinai through Moses to all Hebrews (all 12 tribes plus the Levites).
However several centuries later that situation changed dramatically. Around 700 years prior to
Christ, 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel were sent away in exile to foreign lands for their
disobedience to God. The Assyrians were the Lord’s hand of judgment. The 10 tribes that
formed northern Israel were conquered and scattered throughout the vast Assyrian Empire and
due to their disinterest in being Hebrews any longer, most assimilated into the world of the
gentiles throughout the giant Asian continent, and others were sent into North Africa. What
remained of the Hebrews in the Holy Land was the tribe of Judah and most of the tribe of
Benjamin; but rather quickly Benjamin assimilated into the tribe of Judah. The name that was
given to the people of Judah was Jews. And soon enough they too would be exiled from the
Holy Land, only for them it would be into Babylon.
Because one result of the Babylonian conquest was the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple, and thus the end of a functioning Priesthood, so the Hebrew-ism that used the Torah
of Moses as its civil and religious code was soon replaced with something else. And that
something else was a mixture of Torah and newly formed traditions. Since this was only
applicable to those of the tribe of Judah (the 10 tribes no longer being present, having melded
into the gentile world), this new hybrid religion became the basis of Judah-ism; the religion of
Judah. The Jews at that time didn’t actually refer to their religion as Judaism; that is something
that came centuries later. Nonetheless, all the practices and customs that in time gained the
label of Judaism were being developed and practiced by the Jews during and after their
Babylonian captivity.
So to be clear, it was against this hybrid religion of Torah and Tradition whose home was the
Synagogue, a religion that we call Judaism, that Stephen is said to have offended. Remember;
the Temple was controlled by the Priests and the Sadducees. And the Temple and the
2 / 8

Sadducees denied the validity of the very thing that the Synagogues taught, believed in, and
demanded adherence to: Traditions, Oral Torah. So, as mainstream Christianity regularly
claims, was Stephen distancing himself from the Law of Moses and from the culture of the
Jews? That is, that the Believing congregation to whom he belonged was in process of ceasing
to be Jews and instead becoming Christians?
Verse 2 immediately answers that question. “Brothers and fathers” he says, “listen to me”.
Stephen makes it clear that he regards himself as one of them, and they remain a part of him.
He is in no way separating himself from the Jews of Judea. And from here he goes on to recall
the heritage that he feels he shares with his brothers and sisters, the heritage that all Jews
know starts with Abraham whom he calls “our father” (not your father or my father, but rather
OUR father). So far so good.
It is important to note that everything that Stephen is quoting about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
Joseph is theoretically taken directly from the Torah so that he could demonstrate both his
knowledge of the Torah as well as his dedication to it. But a problem arises that isn’t easy to
spot unless you know what to look for. If we check with the Hebrew Bible, some of the details
that Stephen quotes don’t line up. I need you to pay close attention to this, please, because
this isn’t trivial. For instance, in verse 4 Stephen says that during the time Abraham was living
in Haran, his father died and then God made Abraham move to the land (that is to Canaan,
which is now Judah). Genesis 11:26 says that Abraham’s father Terach was 70 when
Abraham was born and then Genesis 11:32 specifically says that Terach died at the age of
205. But Genesis 12:4 says that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran. 70 plus 75
equals 145; so that would make Terach 145 years old when he died, not 205. Yet 205 is what
the Hebrew Tanakh clearly says. One of these numbers has to be incorrect, but which one?
And this was as evident to the people of that day as it is to us. So what to do?
We talked last week about the Samaritans who had established their own Temple and
Priesthood, but who also modified the Torah in some ways to match their traditions. And one of
the ways they did that was to change Genesis 11:32 to say 145 years instead of 205. In other
words, they decided that there was an error in the math and so they corrected it in their Torah.
The Sanhedrin to whom Stephen was speaking would likely have immediately noticed the use
of the number 145 instead of 205, since this was an area of dispute. Would they say then that
Stephen had made a basic mistake that most Jewish children would have recognized? No.
This would have told them something important that infuriated them all the more; Stephen was
quoting the Samaritan Pentateuch; the holy book of the despised Samaritans. Why would he
do that? In order to keep this train of thought and move to the point I would like to make, drop
down to Acts 7:14. There we have Stephen saying that Jacob and all of his relatives went
down to Egypt to meet Joseph; all 75 of them. However the Hebrew Bible says this in Genesis
46:
Genesis 46:27 CJB
27
The sons of Yosef, born to him in Egypt, were two in number. Thus
all the people in Ya'akov's family who entered Egypt numbered seventy.
The Hebrew Tanakh says 70, not 75. However in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Greek
Septuagint, the number is indeed 75. Remember that I pointed out last time that Stephen was
3 / 8

Hellenist Jew; his name was Greek, his first language was Greek, and he would have originally
come to Judah from somewhere foreign. Here’s the crux: was Stephen perhaps from
Samaria? Could he have been a Samaritan? The people present would have caught the
differences between the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Torah because the Synagogue mostly
used the Greek Torah while the Temple strictly used the Hebrew Torah. But there is yet
another clue that pretty well nails matters down. Move down now to Acts 7:15 and 16. There
Stephen says that the place that Abraham bought for a tomb for his family was in Shechem,
and he bought that tomb from Hamor of Shechem. Listen however to the Hebrew Tanakh (the
Old Testament) and what it says about where Abraham bought a burial plot and from whom.
Genesis 23:17-20 CJB
17
Thus the field of 'Efron in Makhpelah, which is by Mamre- the field, its cave and all the
trees in and around it- were deeded
18
to Avraham as his possession in the presence of
the sons of Het who belonged to the ruling council of the city.
19
Then Avraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Makhpelah, by Mamre,
also known as Hevron, in the land of Kena'an.
20
The field and its cave had been
purchased by Avraham from the sons of Het as a burial-site which would belong to him.
Yes, I know that Stephen was talking about burying Jacob and Joseph, and not Sarah, in
Shechem. However once again listen to another passage from the Hebrew Tanakh:
Genesis 49:29-33 CJB
29
Then he (Jacob) charged them as follows: "I am to be gathered to my people. Bury me
with my ancestors in the cave that is in the field of 'Efron the Hitti,
30
the cave in the field of Makhpelah, by Mamre, in the land of Kena'an, which Avraham
bought together with the field from 'Efron the Hitti as a burial-place belonging to him-
31
there they buried Avraham and his wife Sarah, there they buried Yitz'chak and his wife
Rivkah, and there I buried Le'ah-
32
the field and the cave in it, which was purchased from the sons of Het."
33
When Ya'akov had finished charging his sons, he drew his legs up into the bed,
breathed his last and was gathered to his people.
The point is that the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, says that Jacob was buried in the same cave
that Abraham buried Sarah and that cave was bought from Efron the Hittite, and it was near
Hebron, not Shechem.
So why the glaring discrepancy? Was Stephen just a poor student of the Bible and he is
mumbling nonsense? No. The Samaritan tradition was that Abraham bought the cave from
Hamor and buried everyone near Shechem, not Hebron. Why this different tradition? Because
4 / 8

Shechem was in Samaria and Hebron was in the south of Judea. Stephen was quoting the
Samaritan tradition about the burial place of the Patriarchs. Why else would he do that if he
weren’t a Samaritan? He certainly wouldn’t have learned that at the Temple. I went through
this little Sherlock Holmes exercise to make the point that it is nearly certain that Stephen was
himself a hated Samaritan who had practiced the Samaritan religion until sometime before he
became a Believer. My speculation is that he was probably a Jew who lived in Samaria from
birth, and so was of course taught the Samaritan traditions, and he had not yet let go of the
Traditions of the Samaritans, or just as likely didn’t even know that the Hebrew Bible had a
different tradition. And once that became clear to his accusers from the Synagogue and the
Sanhedrin, he was quite literally a dead man walking. To them Stephen being a Samaritan
would explain his supposed bent against Judaism and it explains to us why the men of the
Synagogue reacted so irrationally about the supposed destruction that Stephen’s master
Yeshua (even though he was dead) was going to wreak upon the Jerusalem Temple. After all
the issue of the Temple was a very sensitive one; the Samaritans had a rival Temple at Mt.
Gerizim and thought the Jerusalem Temple illegitimate and vice versa. Jealously and rivalry is
a terrible thing, especially when it involves religion. But Stephen being a Samaritan would also
explain the blind hatred that they felt towards him (once they figured out that indeed he was a
Samaritan) and thus their murderous desire to kill him immediately.
Let’s back up now to verse 3, which begins Stephens’s long overview of the history of the
Hebrews to which he claims brotherhood. We’ll not go over every detail, but rather simply
follow his path. Since it was with Abraham that God made a covenant that created the Hebrew
people and set aside a particular land for a national homeland, it is the logical place to start. I
want you to notice that the main point Stephen makes about Abraham concerns the land. The
land is the key, because the land and the people (the Hebrews) are organically connected.
Thus we see Stephen speak about how Abraham was to leave his land, and go to a land that
God would show him. And then after Abraham’s father Terach died, only then did Abraham
journey to that land. And next Stephen says that although Abraham didn’t receive any land for
his own, the land did go to his descendants.
Then in verse 8 land is used in a different way. Before Abraham’s descendants receive the
land God has set aside for them, they will be aliens in a foreign land where they will be slaves
for 400 years.
The next milestone is that Abraham received the rite of circumcision as a sign of the covenant
made between God and Abraham. To reiterate: the Abrahamic Covenant primarily concerns
land. Note something that is often misunderstood: circumcision was first used as the sign of
the Abrahamic Covenant, which happened around 5 or 6 centuries before it was incorporated
into the Covenant of Moses. So while the Abrahamic Covenant was built around land, the
Covenant of Moses was mostly about people; it was about how redeemed people are to
behave and conduct themselves before the Lord, and about what a relationship between God
and His people is to look like. Circumcision was incorporated into the Law of Moses; thus we
see how circumcision regarding Abraham’s covenant that was about land, was integrated with
the Mosaic Covenant that was about God’s people. God made the two issues of His people
and His land inseparable through the single sign of circumcision.
5 / 8

Next the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are passed to Isaac, and of course Stephen
points out the all important circumcision ceremony, the B’rit-milah. He quickly moves to
Jacob, son of Isaac, as next in line and that Jacob became the father of what Stephen calls the
12 Patriarchs. He is not confusing the well know term “the Patriarchs” (meaning Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob); rather he is just using the term patriarchs in a more general way as referring
to founders of the 12 tribes of Israel.
The next stage of history that Stephen recounts is of the life of Joseph. There are for sure two
points to this part of Stephens’s speech. First is that it shows the fulfillment of God’s oracle to
Abraham that Israel would wind up in a foreign land as slaves before they received their own
land inheritance, and how it came about. Second is that Stephen points out how Israel
continued with a long pattern of at times being faithful, and at other times being rebellious. And
how God would punish, and then rescue, with the goal of redemption for Israel’s grave
trespasses and thus never closing the door on the possibility of God’s mercy and Israel’s
restoration. Yet, there may well be a third point that Stephen is making by focusing on Joseph;
Joseph’s life somewhat mirrors that of Messiah Yeshua. And considering that Stephen was all
about preaching the Gospel, I am convinced that he intended to draw this parallel. And he
does so by pointing out that Joseph was the savior of Israel by bringing the clan to Egypt to
survive a famine. But, at first Israel didn’t recognize their own brother, and thus didn’t know
for a time the identity of their savior as one of their own.
Stephen recalls that once it was established that Joseph would save Israel, his father Jacob
brought all his clan to Egypt, and that it was there that he died, but his bones were brought with
Israel when they left Egypt for Canaan. And says verse 17, this was a fulfillment of God’s
oracle to Abraham to first send Israel to a foreign land, and then rescue them from it and bring
them into their own land, the Promised Land.
Now Stephen sets the stage for the advent of Moses by briefly speaking about Israel’s terrible
time in Egypt shortly before their deliverance when newborn Hebrew babies were cruelly killed
on order of the Pharaoh. And this was due to the dramatic multiplying of Israel’s population in
the most impossible of circumstances. One of the things being accomplished here is that
Stephen is cementing his personal identity with Moses, calling him beautiful, so that any
charges against him that he would blaspheme or deny Moses would be seen as absurd.
Stephen goes on to explain that in a wonderful irony, Moses (a hated Hebrew) was raised in
Pharaoh’s household and given the best education. But then verse 23 tells us something that
ties in with our long discussion of Judaism and the Synagogue. Stephen says that Moses was
40 years old when, still as a member of Pharaoh’s household, he decides he wants to go visit
his Israelite brothers. This of course doesn’t mean that there was a journey involved; it just
means that Moses had been segregated from the Hebrew community that lived next to the
ethnic Egyptian community. Here’s what I want you to catch: nowhere in the Torah do we find
that Moses was 40 years old when he went to see his Israelite brothers. So did Stephen just
use a bit of rhetorical license to invent a number to embellish his story? Of course not; in fact it
was a number that at least the mob that wanted to kill him would have agreed with. You see,
the number 40 is a Tradition; it came from the Synagogue. And since Stephen was, as were all
Jews in this era products of the Synagogue (except for the Priests and Levites who were
6 / 8

products of the Temple), he simply took this Tradition of Moses being 40 at this time as
immutable fact. I point this out because it is another opportunity to demonstrate that the
thought processes of the writers and Bible characters of the New Testament….all of it….. revolve
around the Synagogue and Oral Torah (Tradition) that was taught there. They did so
automatically and unconsciously because that’s what they knew; it was simply part of who
they were. It is not unlike Christianity accepting December 25
th
as the date of Jesus’s birth.
There is not one hint in the Bible that this is so; but because Roman Church authorities long
ago deemed it to be so, few in the modern Church would even think to question it. December
25
th
as Christ’s birthday is a manmade tradition with no basis of historical fact or record, and
neither is Moses being 40 at the time of the event in Egypt that Stephen refers to historical fact
or record; it too is a manmade tradition. But Lord help anyone who would dare to challenge
either of these points. That is the power of long held customs and traditions and doctrines
especially in a religious environment. Sometimes the effect is benign; at other times it is
malignant and causes grievous doctrinal error.
In verse 25 Stephen makes the point that Moses, like Joseph, was rejected by his brother
Israelites (again, his point is to make an obvious connection to Yeshua). But, says Stephen,
Moses was rejected because the Hebrews didn’t understand that he was to be their deliverer,
their savior. So he kind of softens his rhetoric by making the Israelites early rejection of Moses
and Joseph (and by association, Yeshua) due to ignorance rather than knowingly choosing to
deny the Son of God. Next Stephen quotes Exodus 2:14 and says that when Moses
intervened in a dispute among Hebrews they retorted, “Who made you ruler and judge over
us….?” So what we see is Moses’ second act as a Mediator; but this time as a mediator
between 2 Israelites. And these combatants question Moses’ authority over them. But more
they remind Moses of his first act of mediation when he killed an Egyptian for striking a
Hebrew. So here we see God’s future Mediator mediate with both gentiles and Hebrews on
earthly matters. But we also see how hard hearted the Hebrews had become. As a result,
Moses fled to Midian from fear of prosecution for murder.
Stephen now turns to the moment when Moses became God’s official Mediator, as he
describes the Burning Bush event. But once again we see Synagogue Tradition play a role in
Stephen’s speech. He beings verse 30 by saying, “After 40 more years an angel appeared to
him in the desert….” In fact the Torah does not say Moses’ age when he fled Egypt, nor how
long he spent in Midian. The best Torah reference we get in determining Moses age is in
Exodus 7:7 when we’re told that Moses was 80 years old the first time he confronted
Pharaoh. So here Stephen merely quotes Oral Torah, assuming it as fact, and I must say that
I find it mildly amusing that since his speech wound up in the New Testament, Moses being 40
when he fled Egypt and spending 40 years in Midian is taken by the Church to be Biblically and
historically accurate when in fact it is ancient Synagogue Tradition.
Now Stephen starts to narrow his message and purpose by saying that Moses, the one who
was rejected by the people of Israel saying, “Who made you a ruler and judge?”, is in fact the
very ruler that God had chosen to be ruler and judge over His chosen people, Israel. In other
words, the people were wrong to question Moses; in fact they at first ridiculed and rejected
God’s appointed ruler and judge. But this time Stephen adds to his characterization of Moses
by adding the word “ransomer”. This of course starts to draw his story closer and closer to
7 / 8

Yeshua. And Stephen says in verse 36 that it is this man, Moses, who as God’s deliverer took
Israel out of Egypt through great miracles and signs, and led them through the desert
wilderness for 40 years. And, knowing that the Synagogue members and the High Priest and
the Sanhedrin whom he was addressing wouldn’t in any way dispute his logic and conclusion
to this point, he now reminds them that this same Moses that was venerated by all Jews is the
one who said that at a later time God would raise up a prophet like him from among the
Israelites. The unspoken question is: so who is this prophet like Moses?
Stephen returns to the theme of disobedience by saying that now that Moses’ authority from
God had been revealed the people of Israel did not want to obey Moses. In other words, this
was not an act of ignorance but rather a display of willful rebellion against God (and by
extension against Moses, God’s Mediator). The intended implication is that it is not Stephen
who is speaking against Moses but rather his accusers who are the rebels. And he uses the
incident of the Golden Calf as an illustration of willful, knowing, intentional refusal to obey God.
There Aaron, High Priest of Israel (and don’t miss Stephen’s implied connection between
what Aaron did and what Caiaphas is currently doing), built god images and led the people into
rebellion and into worshipping false gods.
As we near a close for today, I’ll pause for just a moment so that we don’t lose the forest
amidst the trees: this immense, undying respect that Stephen is showing towards Moses IS his
answer to Caiaphas about whether the accusations against him are true. And at the same time
Stephen is turning this mock trial on its head from being the accused, to becoming the accuser,
by comparing his persecutors with the worst of the historical rebels against God and Moses,
making them one and the same. And don’t think for a moment that everyone there didn’t fully
comprehend what Stephen was doing.
We’ll conclude the story of Stephen as the first recorded Believing martyr next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8