`And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake' (Acts 6:10).

The Rabbis had laid it down as a rule that the whole of their Scriptures prophesied concerning the days of the

Messiah only. One can well understand how they would be staggered as Stephen took them to the prophecies of a

suffering Messiah, and, using their own canon of interpretation, completely silenced them in their opposition to the

Lord. In the course of his exposition, and in meeting the deep-rooted belief that the Law of Moses was eternal,

Stephen would necessarily emphasize the contrast between the glory of the covenant that had passed away and the

glory of the covenant that abides. He would draw attention to the prophetic utterance of the Lord that, in spite of all

the veneration in which the Temple was held, not one stone would be left upon another; and that He had said that the

Father seeks spiritual worshippers, who shall not be limited to the Temple in Jerusalem, or the Mountain in Samaria.

Among the zealots who would most bitterly resist any such argument, we may be sure Saul of Tarsus held a

foremost place. Yet he was blameless `according to the law' and would never have stooped to the use of false

witness. Others, however, who were less scrupulous, seized upon Stephen's doctrine and distorted it:

`Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against

God ... And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this

holy place, and the law: for we have heard him say, that Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene) shall destroy

this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us' (Acts 6:11-14).

It is quite possible that Stephen had sufficient wisdom and ability to have extricated himself, and to have

temporized concerning the truth which, in its distorted form, told in such deadly fashion against him. It seems,

however, that some conception of the glorious work that was his to do was revealed to him, and though it meant

martyrdom, he redeemed the time, and spoke words that produced at least one result, for Saul of Tarsus never rested

after hearing them, till he found rest `In Christ':

`And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel' (Acts

The Council seem to have had some sense of the solemnity of the moment. As Chrysostom suggests, the High

Priest and the Sanhedrin seem to have been awed by the face of Stephen, and in mild tone the High Priest asks the

simple question, `Are these things so?'

We may well suppose that the apostle Paul would remember most vividly this witness of Stephen, and the

diligent student will find in this witness the germ and seed which later became blossom and fruit in the early

writings of the young man who `consented unto his death'. When in `that day' sower and reaper, planter and

waterer shall stand together before the Lord of the harvest, Andrew will not be forgotten by Simon Peter or by his

Lord, and Stephen will be remembered among those whose loyalty, even unto death, spread the truth of the gospel in

all its fulness and freedom.

The actual witness of Stephen as recorded in Acts 7 now awaits our earnest attention, and this present section

must be regarded as a preparation for the study of this testimony, given by the Church's first martyr, the man whose

Greek name means `a crown'.

We now come to the speech of Stephen which, though it cost him his life, won for him a crown that `fadeth not

away' - and wrought such conviction in the heart of Saul, that to stifle the urgings of conscience, he asked for

authority to conduct persecuting campaigns as far as Damascus.

Stephen goes back to the beginning of Israel's history, and shows that after the call of Abraham, there were two

great types of Christ - Joseph and Moses:

`At the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren' (Acts 7:13).