# 20: 2-9-07 1

Acts 6:8 - 7:8

The true church was continuing to grow in Jerusalem, with many thousands having believed into Jesus to
receive His Life. This was a diverse assembly, even from the beginning. Not only were there men from
Jerusalem and Judea, but there were also many foreign, Greek-speaking Jews, Hellenists, who repented of
their sins and were saved. Even some proselytes, Gentiles who had converted to Judaism, became part of
the community of believers.

We have seen that this created some Agrowing pains@ for the Body of Christ. The Hellenists thought that
their poor widows were being deliberately neglected in the distribution of alms by the Hebrews - the native
Jews of the land. But the Lord mended the rift that had begun between the Hellenists and the Hebrews in
the assembly using the most powerful glue there is - love.

In love, the Hebrews remained unoffended with their Hellenist brethren. In love, the apostles, who had
been making the distribution, removed themselves from that ministry. In love, they relinquished the say as
to who should make the distribution in their place, and gave the choice to the other members of the Body.
In love, those members of the Body selected seven men, all Hellenists, to make the distribution.

All was done in love, for all was done in Christ - in submission to His will in the matter. And so the
Hellenists learned that their Hebrew brethren really did love and care about them, and were even willing to
trust them - with their poor - to meet their needs. Because of love, the Body was able to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3).

Of the seven Hellenists that were appointed to make the distribution, we know very little - except that they
met the qualifications suggested by the apostles. They were men of good reputation, filled with the Holy
Spirit and His practical wisdom, that they would need to do their work effectively. One of the men was
even a proselyte - a Gentile convert - so we can see the equality which was being extended to even Gentiles
within the Body of Christ, which at this time was almost entirely Jewish in origin.

The Hellenist Jews had been born in many different lands of Europe and Asia. They were a product of the
Diaspora, the dispersion of the Jews out of the promised land, principally by the Babylonian conquest. The
lands they occupied eventually became part of the Greek empire, which strongly shaped the regions its
conquered with its culture. Under the Romans, the empire still retained its Greek influence.

Both Greek culture and Greek language were part of the fabric of Hellenist Jews, which tended to unite
them with one another, and created a common bond also between them and the other peoples of the Greek
empire - the Gentiles. The Hellenist Jews who became believers, then, were a natural connection from the
world of the Jews to the world of the Gentiles - perhaps we can say, a supernatural connection.

We will see how the Holy Spirit uses this connection to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles
- to the uttermost parts of the earth.

The connection would begin to be made through two of the Hellenists who were selected to make the
distribution to the impoverished believers in Jerusalem - Stephen and Philip. Through Stephen, the Holy
Spirit would bring a severing of the remaining natural ties that the believing Hebrew Jews felt with their
unbelieving Jewish brethren in Jerusalem - for Stephen=s death would polarize these two groups.

Gone would be the days of having favor with all the people (Acts 2:47) - a great persecution would rise up
 # 20: 2-9-07 2

against the church, resulting in the dispersion of the believing Jews out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). Philip
would then ride on the wave of that persecution to bring the good news of Jesus Christ throughout Samaria,
and even into Ethiopia, through a court official he would evangelize.

Having introduced these seven Hellenists who were to minister alms within the church, Luke then
continues his record in the story of redemption with Stephen.

The record of Stephen is brief. We know little of his life, but that he was a Hellenist Jew who came to
believe that Jesus is Israel=s Messiah - and believing, Stephen gave his life to Jesus. We know that Stephen
must have been prominent in the community of believers in Jerusalem, in that he was selected to be one of
the seven men responsible for distributing alms. He had a good reputation, as a man filled with the Spirit
and wisdom of God.

We recognize, then, that Stephen was a man who lived by faith; but the account Luke gives us is not about
Stephen=s life. It=s about his death. Here is a man who would die by faith - and he would do so in perfect
submission to Jesus, leaving this world in a blaze of glory - a dazzling reflection of His Lord.

The personal account of Stephen begins in verse 8, but let=s look back at the previous verse in conjunction
with the account that follows.

v. 7-8 With this new division of ministry within the Body of Christ, the apostles were able to devote
themselves fully to prayer, and to preaching the gospel, and teaching the word to those who believed it.
The material needs of the church were also being met by the seven men who were making the distribution
of alms, so that the love that knit the community together could be seen by the people.

Therefore, drawn by the love of God, through word and through action, the number of disciples were
continuing to multiply in Jerusalem; even many of the priests came to believe into Jesus as the Messiah. As
mentioned last week, these priests would not have been those of the wealthy, aristocratic chief-priestly
families, who wielded the power in Jerusalem, but likely those of more common backgrounds - perhaps
like Zecharias, John the Baptist=s father.

You can see how the conversion of the priests in particular would have enraged the rulers in Jerusalem, as
even those within the temple hierarchy were being won over to faith in Jesus. The rulers would have
interpreted this to be a dangerous threat to their power base - as indeed it was. As the number of believers
continued to grow, with those from their own ranks even being drawn away, the hostility of the rulers was
continuing to grow, as well.

Stephen, full of faith in Jesus, full of the power of the Holy Spirit, would have been a highly visible figure
in Jerusalem, as he distributed alms to needy members of the believing community, and as he did signs and
wonders among the people.

This is the first case in which we read that one other than the apostles was working signs and wonders.
Previously, the apostles had prayed, along with the other members of the Body of Christ, that signs and
wonders continue to be done in the name of Jesus, and the Lord had signaled His agreement to this (Acts
4:30).

What was the purpose of these signs and wonders? To demonstrate to the people who saw them that the
ones doing them are of God; that He is empowering them. The signs and wonders authenticated the
 # 20: 2-9-07 3

witness of the disciples to Jesus, as they boldly spoke His word to the people. Powerful words, and
powerful signs that backed up those words, as being the words of God.

This ability, then, was given to various members of the Body of Christ, as the Holy Spirit deemed needful.
The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to the profit of God (1 Cor 12:7) - to win souls. In
this beginning in Jerusalem, signs and wonders were deemed needful, to bring in a great harvest of souls
rapidly - before the persecution ensued.

Now - in that you know that Stephen was doing signs and wonders, what else would Stephen have been
doing? What were the signs and wonders for? To authenticate the witness; to show the witness to be of
God. So Stephen would have been - witnessing. Stephen would have been speaking the words of God - all
the words of this Life (Acts 5:20) - Life everlasting - to those in Jerusalem.

But Stephen was not one of the original witnesses to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as
were the apostles (Acts 1:21-26). It is possible that Stephen might never have even seen Jesus, in His life.
So what was Stephen=s witness? His witness would have primarily been to the OT pictures of the Messiah -
and their fulfillment in Jesus. Jesus had said of the Scriptures, AThese are they which testify of Me@ (Jn
5:39). Stephen had seen that testimony, and believed it; and that became Stephen=s witness.

Stephen would have sat under the teaching of the apostles in Jerusalem. Jesus had opened up the
understanding of His disciples to the Scriptures, showing how He was the fulfillment of all the OT types for
Messiah (Lk 44-48). This was the apostles= doctrine - the doctrine of Jesus - which they taught to the new
believers.

Apparently, one place where Stephen gave his witness was in the synagogues in Jerusalem, the local
assembling places of the Jews where they heard the Law read and explained.

v. 9-10 The Greek word for Adispute@ implies a formal debate. It would seem this took place in one of
synagogues of Jerusalem that was frequented by the Hellenist Jews. This synagogue would have used the
Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, as their text, and would have conducted their meetings in the
Greek language. Many foreign Jews could therefore attend such a meeting with understanding.

The peoples that are listed by Luke are from widely dispersed areas, speaking geographically, and may
have been in attendance at different synagogues in Jerusalem, but gathered together in one of the
synagogues to hear this debate. Libertines, or Freedmen, were Jews that had been captured during war and
brought to Rome as slaves, but then were later freed. There was a community of Freedmen in Rome.

The Cyrenians were Jewish inhabitants of Cyrene, a city in North Africa. The Alexandrians were Jews
from Alexandria in Egypt, also in North Africa. The Alexandrian Jews numbered about a million at this
time in history.

Cilicia and Asia were both Roman provinces in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), both of which contained
Jewish enclaves. The capital of Cilicia is Tarsus, where Paul was born. It is possible that Paul attended the
Hellenist synagogue, but in that he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), he was
more likely to attend a synagogue attended by Hebrew Jews. Still, he might have been in attendance at this
debate.

It is most likely that the Hellenist Jews, in hearing Stephen preaching to the people, challenged him to a
formal debate in one of the synagogues. What would have been the subject of the debate? Jesus, of course.
 # 20: 2-9-07 4

Stephen would have spoken about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and of His ascension into heaven.
He would have cited many OT Scriptures, showing their evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. No doubt
Stephen also reiterated what he had heard of the words that Jesus had spoken, and works that He had done,
which pointed to Jesus as the Son of God. And the Hellenist Jews? They would have refuted everything he
said.

But our text says that the Hellenist Jews were unable to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen
spoke; that is, they couldn=t stand against him; they were unable to prevail against Stephen in open debate.

Why was this so? Because Stephen was speaking the truth, by the power of the Holy Spirit. That Jesus did
die, and rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven, is a fact. That His life, death and resurrection, fulfilled
OT Scripture, is irrefutable. That the words of Jesus were of God, and the His works were of God, can not
be denied. Jesus claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God; the facts showed his claim to be true. And the
Spirit framed the words of Stephen in such a way that the truth was irresistible.

Jesus had spoken to His disciples concerning those who would persecute them. He said, AFor I will give
you a mouth and wisdom, which all you adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist@ (Lk 21:15). And
so, the adversaries of Stephen could not prevail against him.

Since they could not prevail against Stephen in word, his adversaries resorted to false witnesses - and to
force.

v. 11-14 The Hellenist Jews were not beneath using whatever means necessary to prevail over Stephen -
and to silence him. To Asuborn@ means to induce a person to make a false oath; that is, to commit perjury.
The Hellenist Jews brought forth false witnesses, who were willing to twist the words that Stephen spoke
concerning Jesus so that they could be construed as blasphemy.

The Hellenist Jews also stirred up the people, rousing a commotion among them against Stephen, turning
popular opinion against him, based upon their false accusations. In generating this agitation among the
people, they managed to get the elders and the scribes involved, most likely members of the Sanhedrin
here, who would not have hesitated to seize Stephen and lead him to the judicial council chamber on the
temple grounds, with the mob in tow.

The false witnesses declared that they had heard Stephen speak blasphemous words. Now, blasphemy
refers here to verbal abuse against God which denotes the very worst type of slander. According to the
Law, blasphemy of the name of the LORD was punishable by death (Lev 24:16).

The Law is silent concerning blasphemy against Moses, and against the temple (Athis holy place@), and
against the Law; but the Jews extended their Law during this period to include that which they considered
holy and sacred: after all, Moses was God=s spokesman; the temple was God=s dwelling place; the Law was
God=s revealed will.

Now, any of these charges of blasphemy were punishable by death, but the charge of blasphemy against the
temple was particularly significant. The Romans had stripped the Sanhedrin of its judicial power to
execute the death sentence in every case, except one: the violation of the sanctity of the temple. To
blaspheme the temple was to declare it unholy - and that constituted a violation of its sanctity.
 # 20: 2-9-07 5

If Stephen could be found guilty of blasphemy against the temple, the Jews could execute him themselves.
Isn=t it remarkable - and telling - that the Jews apparently equated blasphemy against their temple as a more
heinous crime than blaspheming the name of God?

You may remember that the Jewish rulers tried to convict Jesus, through false witnesses, of the same charge
that they now brought against Stephen - blasphemy against the temple. They had the same motivation at
that time, also - being able to execute the death penalty on Jesus themselves.

But they were unable to convict Jesus of blasphemy against the temple. Instead, they determined that He
was a blasphemer against God in His claim to be the Christ, the Son of God (Mt 26:61-66, Mk 14:57-64).
It was because of this that the Jews had to seek out the Romans to put Jesus to death - unintentionally
fulfilling many prophecies, in so doing, including Jesus= own (Mt 20:17-19, Mk 10:33-34, Lk 18:31-33, Jn
12:31-33).

Notice that some of the charges against Stephen were quite specific - we can even see the words of Jesus in
one of them. The false witnesses declared that Stephen said Athis Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place@
- meaning the temple. Can you think of what these words may have been derived from? Turn to John
chapter 2. Jesus had just cleansed the temple at the beginning of His ministry.

[John 2:18-22] It is likely that the disciples of Jesus repeated His words concerning this many times, to
show that Jesus prophesied of His own death and resurrection; and it is equally likely that Stephen repeated
the words of Jesus. But had Jesus said that He would destroy this place? No - He had said that the Jewish
rulers would destroy this temple - meaning the temple of His body - which they did.

It is also possible, although less likely, that this charge of the Hellenists against Stephen had to do with the
prophecy of Jesus to His disciples concerning the coming judgment on Jerusalem: for He said, speaking of
the temple, that Athe days will come, in which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not
be thrown down@ (Luke 21:6).

Jesus later made it clear He was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Gentiles (Lk 21:24). This
would be fulfilled by the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Again, Jesus would not be
the one doing the destroying.

[Return to Acts]

The charges concerning the temple were apparently a matter of the false witnesses twisting the words of
Stephen, to evoke the greatest response possible against him; an attempt to make the most serious charge,
speaking blasphemous words against the temple, stick.

The other charge, changing the customs, or laws, which Moses delivered to the Jews, corresponds to the
charges of blasphemy against the Law, and against Moses - and against God.

We cannot be certain what Stephen may have said, or how the Hellenist Jews construed his words - but as a
former Jew, Stephen would have understood that the Law was the revealed will of God, and that God=s will
is unchangeable. The Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rm 7:12).

Therefore, Stephen would not have said that Jesus would change the customs - the Law - that Moses
delivered to the Jews. What Stephen might have said, in showing that Jesus is the Messiah, is that Jesus
 # 20: 2-9-07 6

fulfilled the Law; or that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus, the
Messiah (Gal 2:16).

The trumped-up charges, as presented, would have been inflaming to any adherent of Judaism. That
religion defined itself by the Law that God had given to Moses, by its ceremonial priesthood and sacrifices,
by its temple worship - by its system of works, that was built up upon these things. Any suggestion that
they be done away with would have been perceived as an attack against the national identity of Israel itself.
And the people responded in kind.

The Sanhedrin, the Jewish judicial council, was only too ready to begin the proceedings against Stephen,
and to try to bring a conviction. Now, you may be wondering, what happened to all that restraint that the
Sanhedrin had decided to exercise regarding the community of believers?

Remember that the Jewish rulers had been forced into the position of having their authority compromised
by the apostles, who would not obey the decree of the council, not to speak at all or to teach in the name of
Jesus. They had been personally attacked by the apostles during their trial, who charged them with
crucifying Jesus.

The rulers watched as the number of believers continued to grow in Jerusalem - there were now thousands
of believers, and the numbers kept increasing - and even their priests were defecting to the cause of Jesus.
Not to mention all the signs and wonders being done, the miraculous healings, which the Jewish rulers
could not explain away, or conceal from the people. Their hostility toward the followers of Jesus was
immeasurable.

But their rage had been kept in check by one factor - the community of believers were viewed with great
grace by common people of Jerusalem (Acts 2:47, 4:33) - they all glorified God for what the disciples were
doing (Acts 4:21) - until now. The people, who had previously favored the disciples, now joined the outcry
against one of them - Stephen. Rulers and people had become one. This freed the arm of the Sanhedrin, to
act against at least this member of the community of believers.

v. 15 So Stephen - having been debated, and accused, and seized, and brought before a mob into the
supreme council of Israel, and formally charged there - how did he respond to all of this? What did the
members of the Sanhedrin see? They saw his face - and it was like the face of an angel.

An angel dwells in the presence of God - and as such, an angel reflects His glory. The glory of God could
be seen in the face of Stephen, because Stephen was filled with all the fullness of God, by the Spirit of
Christ. Stephen was dwelling deep, abiding in His Lord, by His Spirit. As such, Stephen was at peace,
composed - for he was at rest from any self-interest, at rest despite his dire circumstances.

The glory of God shone on Stephen=s face, reflecting the presence of God within Stephen; he was radiant
with the light from heaven. What a sight that must have been to the council. The light shines in the
darkness; but the darkness cannot take it in (Jn 1:5). I=m sure Stephen=s countenance was baffling to the
council.

The passage which follows in chapter 7 is sometimes referred to as Stephen=s defense; but you will see that
Stephen was really not defending himself. Such as response as Stephen made certainly was not intended to
 # 20: 2-9-07 7

secure an acquittal from the Sanhedrin!

We will see that, indirectly, Stephen does respond to the charges made against him, but only for the sake of
showing that it is the nation that has sinned against God - not Stephen. Once again we see, as in the two
trials of the apostles, that it is not Stephen who is really on trial here - it is the rulers, and the nation of
Israel - and Stephen is the chief prosecutor, as the Holy Spirit pronounces through him a conviction of the
collective guilt of the nation against their Messiah, Jesus.

Stephen makes his response using a form that was common for Jews in that day - reciting the history of
Israel in such a way as to make certain points, or to show certain themes. Before we begin to look at his
response, let=s have in mind what would be Stephen=s main theme: The faithfulness of the God of Israel, in
contrast to the faithlessness of His nation.

Stephen will make the point that the refusal of Israel to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah reflects the
history of the nation, with Israel always rejecting the deliverers and saviors that God sent them. Stephen
starts with Abraham, where the history of the nation begins.

7:1 The high priest was most likely Caiaphas, who presided at the Sanhedrin=s trial of Jesus. He was
basically asking Stephen, AHow do you plead@? Stephen=s answer came in the form of a lengthy speech to
the council.

v. 2-3 Stephen began with a respectful address to the members of the council, and then he spoke of the
God of glory - a title for God that speaks of Him in His infinite perfection, His divine majesty and holiness.
Sovereign God, who purposes to carry out His good and perfect plan - and then makes it so.

Stephen=s address is the only place that we learn that God appeared to Abraham while he was still in
Mesopotamia - in Ur of the Chaldees. The account in Genesis 12 simply informs us that the LORD spoke to
Abraham (Gen 12:1). So Abraham not only heard God when he was back in Ur, he saw Him - certainly in
the form of the preincarnate Christ.

Stephen cites the well-known calling of Abraham to get out - out of his country, and from his kindred - his
relatives - which would include those of his father=s house, who are also mentioned in Genesis 12 (v. 1).
Remember that Stephen is summarizing, and blending detail - we will see evidence of this throughout his
address. But he is speaking to Jews, who are well-familiar with the details. We=ll add detail for ourselves
as we need to.

God was calling Abraham to come to a land that God would show him. What land? Abraham wasn=t told.
God would show him, but Abraham had to believe God, and follow Him, in order to see it.

And God gave Abraham certain promises. One of those promises was that God would make of Abraham a
great nation (Gen 12:2). That would be the nation of Israel. Another was that, in Abraham, all the families
of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:3). That would be through the Christ, who would be Abraham=s
Seed. But the promises would be fulfilled only if Abraham responded to God, by faith. So what was
Abraham=s response?

v. 4 Turn to Hebrews chapter 11. The author to the Hebrews was writing of the witnesses of faith.
 # 20: 2-9-07 8

[Hebrews 11:8] Abraham uprooted his whole life, leaving country and kin - not even knowing where he
was going! That=s faith. Although Abraham was just believing God for His promises, he would soon be
believing God - for Himself. Hold on to your place in Hebrews, and return to Acts.

[Return to Acts 7]

God held Abraham in Haran (ACharran@ in the Greek) until his father Terah died, for God had called
Abraham to separate from his father=s house - which was a little more than Abraham could believe God for,
at the time. After Terah died, God brought Abraham into the land - the land of Canaan. Stephen
emphasizes, Athe land where you now dwell@ - the Jews. Because of the faithfulness of the father of the
nation, Israel came into being - and was currently living in the land that Abraham was promised by God - of
which we read next.

v. 5 Abraham entered the land - but it was an occupied land: Athe Canaanite was then in the land@ (Gen
12:6). Nonetheless, the LORD told Abraham, AAll the land that you see, to you will I give it, and to your
seed forever@ (Gen 13:15). The LORD promised it to Abraham as a possession; yet the LORD never gave him
an inheritance in it. Abraham was a sojourner in the land of Canaan till the day he died.

But did Abraham believe God, that He would give him the land? Yes, he did. Let=s look back in Hebrews
chapter 11.

[Hebrews 11:9; skip down to verse 13] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all died without receiving the promised
land - yet God promised it to them. Is the Promiser faithful? Always. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will yet
receive their inheritance - when they are resurrected in the land at the end of the days (Dan 12:13).

But let=s return to Abraham. God promised Abraham the land as his possession, and to his seed after him -
his descendants - when Abraham didn=t yet have an heir. And Abraham=s wife, Sarah, was barren; she had
always been. But Abraham still believed God for what He promised - even though once Abraham tried to
work out God=s promise by his own devices - that=s how he got Ishmael. But Abraham learned to have faith
in God alone - and to wait on Him, for His perfect timing.

And that timing turned out to be after the bodies of Abraham and Sarah were both dead - they were both
past their reproductive years. Turn to Romans chapter 4. Paul wrote of the faith of Abraham - to believe
God for what He had promised.

[Romans 4:19-21] Abraham didn=t look at the seemingly impossible circumstances - he looked to God,
believing that God would do just what He promised. And so He did. God is faithful.

[Return to Acts] God spoke to Abraham more about his seed - still before he ever had a son.
v. 6-7 This prophecy was given after God showed Abraham the gospel in the stars, and Abraham believed
God for His Christ; and it was counted to Abraham for righteousness (Gen 15:5-6). Then God made a
covenant with Abraham, for seed and for the land, and gave him the prophecy.

Abraham=s descendants would dwell in Egypt for a time - 400 years, a rounding of the actual 430 years
given in Exodus 12:40. They would be enslaved and oppressed, but then would return to the land
promised, and serve God there.

God actually called them out to serve Him at Mount Sinai (Ex 3:12), in the wilderness. This is not an error
on the part of Stephen. It was a common practice in this day, in making quotations, to quote the sense only,
or to connect two or more promises having relation to the same thing. The sense of it is that the nation
would be brought out of enslavement, and freed to serve the true and Living God.

Some thirteen years later, with Abraham still without the promised seed, the LORD God appeared again to
Abraham, and confirmed His covenant with him, and gave him a token of the covenant - circumcision.

v. 8 Circumcision was to be the outward token of the covenant which God made with Abraham. And
Abraham believed God, for all that God promised, for all that God covenanted with him - demonstrating his
belief by obeying God, and circumcising himself and all of his household.

By circumcision, the male members of Abraham=s household took God=s covenant into their flesh, showing
that they were members of God=s covenant people, His elect nation. If a male was not circumcised, he
would be cut off from his people, as one who refused to come under the covenant of God.

With circumcision, God had given Abraham a sign. The cutting away of the flesh from the reproductive
organ, through which the seed of life came, was to be a reminder that the body is dead because of sin, but
the Spirit is Life (Rm 8:10); that God is the only one that can bring forth Life; that the flesh profits nothing
(Jn 6:63). Abraham would always carry that reminder with him, and would use it as a teaching tool for his
seed after him, that God will do all the doing - and our part is to simply believe Him.

And one year from that time, Isaac was born - the son of promise - and Abraham circumcised him the
eighth day; and much later, Isaac bore, and circumcised, Jacob; and Jacob bore, and circumcised his twelve
sons - who would produce the twelve tribes of Israel, and eventually, the nation.

Stephen=s point? That God is faithful to do what He has said; and that He can work through even one man
who is willing to believe Him.

From one man, God made a nation for Himself, from whom He would bring His Christ into the world.
This man, Abraham, was the revered father of each of these members of the Sanhedrin; it was by his faith
that they even existed, and by his faith that they were living in the land that was promised to him.

Yet, having given as an example this pillar of faith, Stephen will next begin to show that the nation that
came from him never had the faith of their father, Abraham. Throughout their history, time and again, the
pattern for the nation Israel was unbelief - as it was even this day, when the rulers and the people stand on
the brink of an abyss, ready to plunge themselves into everlasting darkness - for in condemning Stephen,
the nation will be making a final rejection of the Light of Life - Jesus.

Next week - read Joseph, Moses (pertinent passages).