381: John Carter - Stephen's Speech

Automatically transcribed. Accuracy is good but not perfect, and words are sometimes wrong. Trust the audio over the text.

1. 0:03

   Welcome to Good Christophian Talks. Thank you for joining us this week on this podcast. We select one talk a week to help us get the Bible in our Daily News feed. Each week we post a talk that we previewed from suggestions sent in by listeners from around the world. Then we record a short intro beforehand as a personalized recommendation to you on why we are sharing the talk. And now let’s talk more about this week’s talk. Hello, this is brother Chris.

2. 0:34

   For this week, I picked a talk that was from a series that brother John Carter gave at the Wilbraham Bible School all the way back in 1952, talking about the speeches and acts. Now, this entire series was a really fun listen. We’ll have it up on the good Chris Delphine Talks extended podcast with a disclaimer that the audio with the first class is a little rough, something to be expected with a 70 year old recording. But this came as a secondary recommendation from listening to some of the podcast that we did for the podcast showcase back in August.

3. 1:10

   This was from episode 63 of the Wilderness Conversations podcast where Brother Des Mansur was talking with Steven Dotson and he talked about listening to these talks when he was younger. And I found it to be really heartwarming to hear how impactful these were and then made me want to go out and listen to him. And so by listening to him, I, I can agree with whether does that.

4. 1:28

   These were really spectacular classes and it was really fun to hear Brother John Carter’s perspective on it. The specific class that we’re looking at here is class #4 from that series, and it’s looking specifically at Stevens speech. Part of why I picked it is this is one of the speeches where Brother John Carter is putting together a lot of the foundational work that he’s been laying in the first couple classes where he is looking into how Luke was writing the book of Acts and talks about that. But he makes mention of it in this class. But then really puts all together to add a whole bunch of additional depth and detail into Steven’s speech, which is already a very comprehensive speech that he gave and is one that I’ve heard classes before on. But I never heard some of the detail and some of the things that Brother John brings out talking about Steven. And I found it to be a really eye opening way to view Steven’s speech and sort of the progression that Steven goes through as he’s giving the speech to the people that are before him.

5. 2:23

   I hope that you find this to be as thought provoking and interesting as I did and that you are able to find some new Nuggets about Steven’s speech in the book of Acts. So with that, I will turn it over to our brother John Carter coming to you all the way from 1952 from the Wilbraham Bible School for his fourth class on a series on the speeches and Acts.

6. 2:44

   This is Class 4 entitled Stevens Speech. It is evident, dear brethren and sisters, from the length of the speech which has been read, that it must occupy an important place in the scheme of Luke’s history. He has told us of the beginning of Christian life at Pentecost. He traces for us the Jerusalem ministry, the opposition of Jewish authorities, the arrest of Peter and John.

7. 3:14

   He narrates Peter’s defence and then tells us of the origin of the internal difficulties in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. At the same time great progress was made and many that heard these things were added to the Lord. He then has told us in his history how Jewish toleration was established after the imprisonment of the apostles, firstly by their dismissal, and secondly through the council which was accepted, which was given unto them by Gamaliel.

8. 3:50

   And yet those who knew anything about Christian life in its relation to Judaism in the 1st century knew that there was a sharp antagonism existing. What was the origin of that antagonism? We shall see before we are through with this book of Acts the reason why Luke traces out this antagonism. It has a particular bearing upon the legal questions that he will discuss in the book.

9. 4:23

   This speech begins really the important legal issues for a question was being decided by the Jewish authorities whether the distinctively characteristic teaching of the apostles concerning Jesus Christ, with all its implications, should be tolerated by them. And it happened that Stephen, who was a man mighty in the world, as is very evident, who had a power of presentation in his defence, was the one who was arraigned before them. They were visiting the synagogues, of which there were many in Jerusalem, generally devoted to the men from particular districts who visited Jerusalem, a city from those of those from the province of Asia, or from Akaia, as the case may be, or from Egypt.

10. 5:29

    And Stephen, in one of these defences, had been disputing and arguing concerning the Christian faith, And so he was brought before the Jewish authorities with certain charges preferred against him. Now we must try and see as clearly as we can what the charges were that were made against him, For it is only by seeing the charges that were made that we shall see in turn how Stephen presented his apologia, his defence. Let us look then at the charges which are given. The close of chapter 6, verse 10, chapter 6. They were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which He spake.

11. 6:23

    Then they suborn men which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God, And they stirred up the people, and the elders and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses. And here there is a remarkable parallel between what happened to the master and to the servant. They set up false witnesses which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, that is the temple and the law.

12. 7:06

    So the basis of the charge against Stephen was that he had been uttering things which to them were derogatory to temple and to law. And they explained how his contentions were such by saying, we have heard him say that this same Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered us.

13. 7:35

    We’ve heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and change the customs. So it is quite evident that Stephen had been contending that the practices of the Mosaic Law and the worship at the temple were not essential to be acceptable to God. But a time had now come when these things were becoming obsolete. He was in fact putting forward what Jesus had said to the woman at Samaria when she asked Him to decide the issue as to whether Garizim or Zion was the place where men ought to worship. Jesus indicated that historically the answer was in favour of the Jews and of Zion.

14. 8:27

    But the hour is coming when neither here nor there, but wherever men may be, those who worship God in spirit and in truth, would be acceptable to Him, for God’s sake of such to worship Him. The charge against Jesus that He had said He would destroy this temple and raise it up in three days was a perversion of His teaching.

15. 8:48

    He had indeed said, You destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days. But he spake of the temple of his body. But it would appear that the Jews in their opposition to Jesus somehow fused the two statements. For we find there was a haunting fear about them concerning something that would happen in three days. For they went to pilot and said, this man said three days. In three days I will rise again.

16. 9:18

    Therefore make the tomb secure, and with the same sensitiveness. The Jewish authorities saw a danger to the practices in which they had such vested interests. And even though they put aside their vested interests, to a patriotic Jew, it would seem indeed that the man who was putting forward such a case of Stephen but only be classed as a renegade, and must therefore be arraigned before the authorities.

17. 9:48

    They must have related these charges to the law of blasphemy, so serious did they treat them. But the man must have recognised that just as they had manifested the bitterness and the hatred toward Jesus which had brought him to the cross, so he in his turn must be prepared for a similar manifestation of evil spirit toward him. So he too, must be prepared for a like perversion of the application of justice as He stood before these authorities. And therefore He must present such a case that it is put with all power and cogency in defence of the position that he had maintained.

18. 10:35

    So that he might show that if it were indeed God’s purpose that He had been setting forth in His contentions, it might be put before them in such a way that it couldn’t be gained. Seed for the man who had such spirit of wisdom and of power, and also the quiet confidence and radiance that comes from utter conviction in the truth of what he believed.

19. 11:09

    And they looked upon his face, and saw, as it were, the face of an Angel. And with such wonder and bewilderment they must sit and listen for so long a time. While Stephen presented his defence in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, now 100 years old or so, Dean Stanley says that there are 12 mistakes in Stephen’s defence.

20. 11:38

    Rackham, to whose book we referred at our in our first address, a book in so many respects, excellent charges. Stephen with 15 mistakes. Now this is serious. We might think, indeed, that it doesn’t impugn the inspiration of Scripture or the accuracy of the record, that under such circumstances mistakes might be possible. But we needn’t fall back upon that.

21. 12:08

    For every one of these supposed mistakes can be satisfactorily explained, but not only so, in the very explanation of them by the application of the key upon which we have insisted in previous addresses. What appears to be a mistake is seen to have a marked relevance to Pete, to Stevens argument, and is indeed vital to it. Now let me sketch to you first of all briefly his argument, so that we might get its outline in our minds, so that the outline is not less lost in the multitude of details at which we shall have to look.

22. 12:49

    They said then Stephen is speaking against the law and against the temple, clearly indicating that they were not vital, that they hadn’t the place now in the purpose of God attached to them by the Jews. How does he meet it? Well, this broadly is his argument. Abraham was called of God, but he was called before the law was given, and since Abraham acts worship God acceptably, the law was not essential. In Abraham’s case, Joseph and Moses were both rejected, and yet in each case the man was raised up by God as the deliverer of his people.

23. 13:43

    Therefore, the rejection of Jesus was only an extension of the same attitude to God’s work that had been manifested by their fathers. And there was all the elements. They were all the elements of a similar mistake having been made on their part in the rejection of Jesus. He shows that worship was offered to God in the wilderness before the Tabernacle was made. Then the Tabernacle was not essential for acceptable worship.

24. 14:21

    He shows that before the temple was built, David offered acceptable service to God. Neither, therefore, was the temple necessary for acceptable service. He reminds them that their fathers had persecuted the prophets, and therefore warns them that their attitude was a persistence in the evil of their Father’s ways. He reminds them finally that the law which they acknowledged had not been kept by them and therefore this persistence on their part was but an exhibition of what was at National Tray their refusal to accept Him and His message that refusal to accept Jesus and his message was not strange.

25. 15:14

    And so we can see that this speech of Stephen as as we would expect it to have a marked for relevance to the charges that were made. Just as a lawyer in court making a defence on behalf of a prisoner must needs deal with the charges that were that have that were made against the prisoner, otherwise the judge would not permit him to continue, so also Stephen in making his defence must present a case that has strictly related to the charges that were made.

26. 15:52

    And we suggest that the very length of it extended as it must have been in keeping with what has been said about the previous speeches recorded here. It says something for the impassioned power and the ability of the men as he reviews their history and he makes no mistake. He builds up his argument with unerring skill, and Travis has the whole range of Old Testament history.

27. 16:21

    We’ll then try and follow, and we shall have to be a little hurried and a little compressed in what is said, and we shall have to ask you to attend closely. Let us try, then, and follow Stephen in a little more detail. Let us take account of the objections that have been made concerning the accuracy of His words, and see how, following Luke’s method, those objections really become boomerangs against the critical attack to the second verse.

28. 16:55

    Then, men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelting Karen, the God of glory. What’s the significance of that? The glory was the mark of the manifestation of God and the token of His presence in the midst of His people.

29. 17:22

    When, then, Stephen describes God as the God of glory, he is saying that the God who revealed Himself as living in the midst of His people by His glory was the One who called Abraham. But he lived in Mesopotamia, and it was before even he came to Karen that the call was made to him.

30. 17:46

    So God evidently can call men independently of either residence in the land of Palestine or of worship at the Temple. He said to Abraham, Get thee out of this land into a country that I will show thee. And here we come to the first two objections that are raised against the accuracy of Stephen. We’ve caught the words of Rackham, he says. Stephen makes appear to Abraham.

31. 18:19

    Stephen makes God appear to Abraham for the first time in the land of the Chaldeans. That is heard of the Chaldeans, which was sometimes reckoned by the Greeks in Mesopotamia. Genesis is silent about this appearance and makes the first call, the words of which are quoted by Stephen at Heran. Philo and Jesus, however, agree with Stephen, and the earlier appearance is supported by Joshua.

32. 18:44

    But this difficulty is created by making the appearance of God to Abraham, recorded in Genesis 12, to have occurred after Tyra’s death, accepting the AV of Genesis 12. One now the Lord had said to Abraham, We are thrown back to the days of Abraham in earth. What was it that made Tira and Abram leave her, unless there was some divine message that God had given them? A divine message is evident from the fact that it is said through Joshua later that the fathers of Israel were called from beyond the flood, from beyond the Euphrates. And he came into this land, says Stephen, wherein ye now dwell, and from thence and voting Karen, And from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land. Objection 2.

33. 19:33

    Stephen and Philo agrees, says that Tyra died before Abram left Heron. The figures given in Genesis 11/26/32 and 12/4 would imply that Tyra had yet 60 years to live. But that is to mistake the record in Genesis. For Abraham’s name comes first, in keeping with the method of Moses. That’s another story. Just as we’re examining Luke in keeping with the method of Moses.

34. 20:04

    Abraham’s name is name is given first, before that those of his two brothers. But it doesn’t say that he was the oldest and with a perfect right to take the figures and say Abrah Earl lived to Tira lived to be 230 and Abraham was so old when Tira died, therefore Abraham was born.

35. 20:27

    When Tira was subtracting the fit one figure from the other, and there’s nothing in scripture to forbid that, and that Tira therefore had Abraham long after the others. In fact, those of you who have read Blundzum Design Coincidences will know that the disparity in the ages of the generations led to the marriage of one in one generation to the wife in the next, all of which fits in with the differences in the birth of the children. The fifth verse, which we so often quote as showing that the Abrahamic promises were not fulfilled, was not spoken in the first instance for the same purpose that we use it, although our use of it is quite legitimate. He gave him non inheritance into it. In it no not so much as to set his foot on, yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when he has yet he had no child. In other words, that while Abram came into the land, the covenant of God with Abraham cannot fail, and therefore God has a purpose with Abraham which is yet future. And the covenant with Abraham was given before the law, and therefore that is a purpose of God to be developed upon the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, which is not yet realized. Now you’ll observe that Luke records the argument, but he never gives the inference.

36. 22:06

    His space required compression, and he leaves it to the wit of the reader, whom he expects to think after him, to make the inference at every point where it is required. Verse 6. And God spake on this wise, that his seats should sojourn in a strange land, that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them 400 years.

37. 22:31

    And Rackham says, Here’s our third mistake. Stephen and Pylo with Genesis 1513, give 400 years to the time of Israel’s bondage. Exodus 1240 says 430 years. Paul gives the number 430 years. How do we reconcile the Fort under them, the 430? Quite simply, thy seed, God said to Abraham, shall sojourn 400 years.

38. 23:01

    And it couldn’t. The promise, the purpose thus indicated, couldn’t begin till the seed was born. The length of time from the giving of the promises to the giving of the law was 430 years, and therefore the promise was given to Abraham 30 years before Isaac was born. And the difficulty is resolved. The seventh verse says, And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, and after that shall they come forth and serve me in this place?

39. 23:36

    Brackam says Stephen adds to Genesis 151314 And serve me in this place. Words taken from Exodus 312 and so understands by the place Palestine and not Mount Sinai as is meant in Exodus, A criticism that is perfectly gratuitous, but let us apply the method that we’ve already observed. God says to Abraham, the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, and then I’ll bring them forth.

40. 24:08

    And then, and then Stephen deliberately quotes from the words of God to Moses at Horeb, when Moses was told to go down and bring out my people and bring them to this place, and they shall serve me in this place. But why does Stephen quote that reference? His point is that the people in fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise about their sojourn, were brought out at the time indicated, and in fulfilment of the out at the time indicated, and in fulfilment of the words to Moses were led to Sinai, and there served God. But that was before the Law was given. So even the nation of God, says Stephen, offered acceptable service to God before ever the Law was given. How then can the Law, and how can the Tabernacle of the Temple be in themselves of such essential purpose in God’s arrangement there can be worship is establishing independently of those things going on.

41. 25:32

    Verse 8. And they gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised in the eighth day, And Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat the 12th tribes, And the patriarchs moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt. So Abraham had the covenant and even the right of circumcision before ever the law.

42. 25:56

    So it is quite evident, just as Jesus had used the argument before in contention with the Jews, that the right was vital, not because it was of Moses, but because it was of the fathers. And so Stephen said even this essential aspect has its real roots in the fact of something anterior to the law.

43. 26:19

    And so Joseph was taken into Egypt and God was with him. And Stephen isn’t moralizing just he’s something more important to do than to moralize when he’s pleading for his life. Just think of the quickening effect of a man with power of speech and the ability to reason as Stephen had is no time merely for moralizing. When he says God was with Joseph in Egypt, then God can be with a man outside the land of Palestine before law or before temple or before Tabernacle.

44. 26:53

    God was with him and all the time. Stephen is building up his case that there was evidence of divine favour for men independent of law and independent of Tabernacle Temple as the place of worship. He delivered Joseph out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom, and made him governor, a rejected man, exalted by God in his over ruling Providence to favour and to rulership. But rulership where?

45. 27:30

    In the land of Egypt? Among the Gentiles. And what if there’s a parallel in the case of Jesus? What if Jesus, whom they have rejected, should be one of whom it could be said equally with Joseph that God was with him? And what if God had exalted Jesus even to something higher than Pharaoh could exalt Joseph? And what if the divine purpose in connection with the exaltation of Jesus was bound up with Gentiles, just as it was in the case of Joseph?

46. 28:08

    That’s the argument that he’s bringing out as he traces out this history. And there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction. And even when God’s people were thus in dire need, where was it that they found sustenance? Where was it that they found the essential nourishment for life? It was in Egypt.

47. 28:31

    And when was it that they came to know of the exaltation of this brother of theirs whom they’d sought to destroy? And at the second time Joseph was made known unto his brethren, And thus it was in the time of crisis there was a revelation of the divine way in the exaltation of Joseph.

48. 28:56

    And it may be, says Stephen, that there will be a second time in the history of the nation in a time of crisis, when Joseph will be again revealed, or Jesus to be seen to be the deliverer exalted of God. And so he traces the parallel. And so Joseph kindred was made known unto Pharaoh, then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred. 3 score and 15 souls. And Rackham says here again, Stephen’s making a mistake. He says 75 souls, but Genesis 4626, Exodus 1/5, Deuteronomy 10 and 22 all say 70.

49. 29:43

    But another place in the record speaks of 66 souls. Whatever is this man doing blundering about like that? Didn’t he know his history, Although he’s trying to draw out such inferences from it, He knew his history, and the very computation that he’s presenting to them is a part of his argument for the 66 mentioned once in Genesis includes the eleven sons, Joseph being accepted and their sons, and Joseph and his two sons and Jacob added makes the 70.

50. 30:18

    But what about the added five? They’re the sons of Iprim and Manasseh who were born in Egypt, and God includes even those born in Egypt in exile among those who are associated with the purpose of God. And thus what appears to be a mistake on the part of Stephen, and he wasn’t content to just say it. We may be sure he gives his reason and his argument, as we are trying to draw it out in some sort of a feeble way. And therefore it wasn’t these who were thus connected with Palestine and born there, but it was even those who were born outside who were included in the number enumerated in Scripture. And so Jacob went down into Egypt and died. Verse 15 says he and our fathers and were carried over into psych him and laid in the sepulchre that Abram bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emma, the father of Shechem. And so we get objection 6.

51. 31:29

    But Joshua tells us that Joseph was buried at Shechem, and in adding his brothers our fathers, Jacob’s 12th sons. Stephen is probably quoting contemporary tradition. It is necessary to notice that in verse 16, and were carried over by the very fact that the Greek includes the pronoun as part of the verb. It’s part of the ending of the verb that we must introduce the plural.

52. 32:01

    And they were carried over in verse 16. And that refers to our fathers. And so Stephen says that our fathers were carried over into Sycam and laid in the sepulchre, the Abram board. But where was Sycam? In Samaria of all places, the land of these despised and hated and accursed Samaritans. And if there was any virtue at all in connection with the land of Judea, then Stephen says, don’t forget the fathers of the nations were buried in Samaria.

53. 32:36

    There’s not the sanctity about the land that you’re thinking. And those men are still men in the purpose of God, although they’re buried there. Even in Samaria. He’s got some pungent, some pungent things to say, which must have stung them as he builds up his case point by point. And the next objection is that Abram didn’t buy a sepulchre of the sons of EMA.

54. 33:03

    Now the answer to this is rather involved, and I don’t know whether I can put it over in the short space available, but we do know that Abraham had an altar there. We do know that Jacob recovered the possession of the land by the use of his bow and left it as a special inheritance to Joseph. And the word portion that is used by Jacob in allotting that to Joseph is the very word psychum. And why did Jacob take the land?

55. 33:37

    Probably because there was some title to it already vested in them, For the fathers were sojourners in the land and never attempted marauding raids like that, and so therefore therefore the inference can be drawn. But Jacob did think he’d some title to the land, and the probabilities are that Abram did indeed by the land. So it isn’t after all something that cannot be reasonably explained.

56. 34:02

    And when the time of the promise grew nigh, which God has sworn to Abram, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, for God bless the people, and the multiplication was in Egypt. God isn’t dependent upon the land of Palestine. He isn’t dependent upon the set up upon which the Jews placed such store for the working out of his purpose.

57. 34:28

    Even their forefathers multiplied when they were in Egypt, until another king arose which knew not Joseph. And then came the time of affliction, the time of such oppression that it was an effort to exterminate the people. And then Moses was born. But where was the leader born in Egypt? Where was he brought up?

58. 34:53

    In Pharaoh’s household? Did they think that all the skill that he had could be used by them when he thought that with all the training that had gone to the making of him, he was their leader? Now, says Stevie, they rejected him. An objection is raised that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and mighty words and deeds, but isn’t so serious the difficulty and can easily be answered. And when he was full 40 years old. And another objection is raised that there’s no record of him being 40 years, but there is an expression in Exodus which indicates so.

59. 35:32

    Chronologists tell us that he was 40. We say someone’s coming of age and we know at once that they’re 21, and the expression is used in the record concerning Moses that indicates that he was 40. He saw one of the Israelites suffering and he took an action by which he burned his boats.

60. 35:55

    It’s long time been thinking that he was the deliverer. Why such remarkable circumstances in his life that he should first of all be preserved, and then brought up in Pharaoh’s house, and then equipped with all the skill in military arts and political economy? Why, it just seemed as though he was the leader.

61. 36:15

    He supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them, but they understood not. And Rackham says objection 10, The deeper motive, the desire to give deliverance to his people, which is important in the parallel with the Christ. You see, Rackham catches the argument of Stephen or what he’s getting at, but he says the desire to give deliverance to his people, which is important to the parallel with Christ, is ascribed by to Moses, by Philo as well as by Stephen. Exodus is silent on this.

62. 36:56

    What is the answer? Exodus tells us, as Stephen quotes that the Israelite who strove with his fellow said to Moses, who made their Prince and the judge over us. This shows that Moses is acting, saying the Egyptian was regarded as an indication on his part that he was willing to lead a revolt of the slave people. And it is implicit in that and other statements in the narrative that Moses was contemplating acting as deliverer.

63. 37:25

    And the influence of Stephen is therefore quite legitimate, when he showed himself to the Israelites the next day, and it became evident that what he had done was known. And when it was said, Who made the ruler over us? Wilt thou kill me? That Moses fled into exile? And what if another leader that has gone away from them as Moses was to come back and be their deliverer?

64. 37:54

    If there’s to be a prophet like unto Moses, what’s the parallel in Moses’s life that has to come in the life of the deliverer? Says Stephen. If the one is rejected at his first appearing, and yet he’s sent back by God to achieve the work, what’s the corollary which comes from your rejection of Jesus? Will God send him back?

65. 38:15

    That is what Stephen is saying to them. And then when 40 years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an Angel of the Lord, in a flame of fire in the Bush. So God made himself, made of himself, one of the most striking revelations in all Old Testament history. And it was made in and through Moses, when he was in exile from his own people.

66. 38:45

    Isn’t there a point in that? What if, after all, the mightiest manifestation of God has been revealed through Jesus, who had been taken away from them? Rackham’s objection 11 concerns a matter of angiology, angiology which we need not go into. So Moses wondered at the sight as he drew near and beheld it. And he heard God saying, I am the God of the father of the God of Abram, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. You remember how that was used by Peter, as we saw the other day, and what the significance of it was as Luke narrates it. And so here the one who revealed himself to Moses, that Sinai was the one who had further intentions than the Mosaic covenant.

67. 39:33

    And Stephen link’s the divine claim to be the God of Abraham with that revelation through Moses, and links the antitype with the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. And so it passes in review a little more fully the things that are concerned with Moses, the sending back of the leader whom they had rejected by God. And then he brought them out.

68. 40:01

    Moses brought Israel out. After that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness 40 years. And if God could preserve his people for 40. Years in the wilderness, God’s protecting and preserving care was not dependent upon land or upon people. And you’ll notice how in this recapitulation from their history, there is a constant hammering home of this point. Stephen isn’t basing his case upon one incident. He says the the whole range of our history is eloquent of the fact from which I’m claiming which I’m stating my case. It’s a question of the divine purpose at any time. And if God could do all these things before whatever the law was formulated, isn’t it within the range of possibility that the law can have run its course?

69. 40:57

    And God introduced another dispensation, wound up with the anti type of Moses, and therefore because it was the fulfillment of all the typical features of the law, something that is independent of them. That this is the case is clear because the argument moves on. This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, a prophet, shall the Lord your God raise up unto you. Stephen said I’m not dreaming dreams or putting over to you mere speculations.

70. 41:29

    Here’s the testimony that there has to be a prophet like unto Moses, There has to be 1 to come to whom in whose life there is a parallel with the life of Moses? In whose experiences there is a parallel with the experiences of Moses? And he points the parallel, when in verse 38 he says, this is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the Angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles to give unto us.

71. 42:01

    He was in the ecclesia, as the Greek word. He was in the ecclesia in the wilderness. And the 22nd Psalm says concerning Christ after His resurrection, I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the midst of the ecclesia. Catch the phrase that he’s using here. In the midst of the ecclesia will I get praise unto thee. So as Moses was with the ecclesia there, even the children of Israel, which is called the ecclesia, so the Lord Jesus was in the midst of the Ecclesia and his tracing out his parallel, there was a divine revelation given to Moses at Sinai when he was in the midst of the ecclesia. There’s been a divine revelation which has an old law and temple and sacrifice by this prophet like unto Moses in the midst of this ecclesia, this Church which has been established as the result of his work.

72. 43:09

    That just as Moses received the living oracles to give them unto us, so through the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus, of whom the Psalmist speaks, as we have quoted, has given living oracles unto us, which are the rule of our life, which are the expression of the Divine will. Do you regard that message give through Moses, he says, as being the living voice of God?

73. 43:36

    Then you admit the possibility of God revealing himself through a man. Granted, says Stephen. And we claim that there’s been another revelation through the prophet like unto Moses. And so the basis of the Christian behaviour and it’s attitude to Loewen Temple is claimed by Stephen to be based equally with Israel’s worship upon divine sanctions. But sanctions ministered through a higher profit and a greater mediator than even Moses was.

74. 44:15

    And so he’s led his argument onto the fact that it was through a divine revelation that the Christian was claiming to follow the way of life that they formulated. But now he turns to them and says, now look at all your history and don’t repeat it in the wilderness. Your father said, make us gods to go back to Egypt.

75. 44:37

    You’ve always wanted to go back rather than to go forward. Now change your policy and your practice, he said. Don’t repeat the folly of your father. They said, let’s go back now, don’t go back, go forward with the revelation, he says. And then verse 42 then got turned and gave them up to the worship of the host of heaven as it is written in the book of the Prophets.

76. 45:02

    And he’s quoting from Amos. And here we get objections 12 and 13 of Rackham as it is written in the book of the Prophets. O ye House of Israel, have you so offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of 40 years? And that was written of a time long after. But the point of the prophecy is that throughout their history they’d manifested such a character. Yeah, he took up the Tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your God R.E.M.

77. 45:30

    Fan and figures which he made to worship him. And I will carry you away. And the passage in Amos says beyond Damascus, and Stephen says beyond Babylon. But remember again what we’ve pointed out so often that he introduces another quotation and expects us to go to it. And he’s quoting now from Jeremiah, where God said he would send them to Babylon. And what’s his point in adding the prophecy of Jeremiah to that of Amos, that they would be sent to Babylon? Why just this, that God called Abraham out of Babylon and because of the behaviour of their fathers, God had sent them back to Babylon.

78. 46:16

    Terrible indictment and a very powerful warning to them. He said look at your history and don’t perpetuate the folly of your father’s. Our fathers of the Tabernacle witness in the wilderness. And so before temple there was Tabernacle. Then there was a change from Tabernacle to temple, and therefore there can have been another change. And he says in the 45th verse, which also our fathers that came after brought in the Tabernacle with Jesus, Jesus. And Jesus, you know, is Joshua.

79. 46:48

    You know that. And in the letter to the Hebrews written by the man who was listening to Stephen and consenting to his death, says that Jesus didn’t give them the inheritance. I’m sure Paul was feeling the force of this argument, and there are stages in men’s lives when the force of the argument being seen and it being felt to be unanswerable. The only answer they can give is the throwing of stones, and that’s where store Saul was just now. But the argument of Stephen one with Saul, and it’s Saul himself who repeats these arguments in his letters, particularly in the letter to the Hebrews.

80. 47:35

    But Saul the persecuted becomes all the ambassador then, which also our fathers that came in after, brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers unto the days of David. But if it was Joshua who led them in, then they didn’t receive the inheritance by Moses, and therefore it wasn’t on the basis of the Law that they’d have the inheritance, but by something subsequent to the Law.

81. 48:05

    Therefore the law must pass to give something to place to something else upon which the inheritance would be based. And then after David’s day, Solomon built him a house. But that isn’t final because even the prophet contemporary with it says, Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. And the citation is from the 66th chapter of Isaiah, where God says Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool. Where is the house that you build unto me for all these things of my hands made?

82. 48:41

    How can you make a house for God out of the materials that He himself has provided? You can only make a house for God out of what you yourself provide, says the Prophet. The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. As Seth the Prophet. Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. What house will you build to me, says the Lord? What is the place of my rest?

83. 49:06

    And the answer of the prophet is, that none of these things that God himself has made will do. But to this man will I look, that is of a humble and contrite spirit, and who trembleth at my word. And so, Stephen says, even the prophets testify that the dwelling place of God isn’t the material edifice, but a structure composed of men and women of the character who are humble and contrite in heart, and who tremble at His word.

84. 49:41

    This is the building that is the finality of the divine purpose. And therefore these things to which you’re clinging so closely are only the temporal, the transitional, the typical. And clinging to them, you’re losing sight of the reality. And God has laid the foundation in Jesus Christ. And by being humble and contrite and trembling at his Word, you yourself can be built into what will be the divine dwelling place. And we must, at this point, postulate a growing murmur of growls and dissentment, with looks of venomous hatred on their faces, which made Stephen realize that to pursue his argument was pointless beyond this stage. And so he turns to indictment.

85. 50:31

    He’s stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart. You do always resist the Holy Spirit as your Father’s did. So do you ye Which of the Fathers have not your, which of the Prophets have not? Your Father’s persecuted and recompines this 14th objection. There they crucified the just one of whom the prophets had spoken.

86. 50:53

    They resisted the prophets, they resisted the one of whom the prophets spoken. They’d received the Law by the disposition of angels, and while they’d had great privileges, they hadn’t kept it. And Stephen here had a reminiscence of what Jesus had said. On one occasion. He turned the argument back upon themselves, and Jesus said in effect to them in one of the speeches recorded in John’s Gospel.

87. 51:23

    How can you go on to a fuller revelation when you haven’t kept the one you had? And that is what Stephen is saying here. You receive the law by the disposition of angels, and you haven’t kept it. How then are your minds and hearts open to go on to a fuller revelation and to receive it? And so Stephen has presented this case, which has ended in such a burning charge.

88. 51:51

    And then they burst down all restraints, and take him out to the place of dawning to be stoned to death. And even there this man has a final testimony. Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Well, Jacob had seen the heavens open and the possible way of connection between heaven and men.

89. 52:16

    But now Stephen says, heaven is open, and the man for whom the link with heaven has been established is there at the right hand of God two mighty a claim for them to receive. And with fingers in ears they rushed him out to the place where they stoned him. And Saul says Luke, with all the significance of his method of writing his history.

90. 52:44

    And Saul was consenting unto his death. And so we have the account of how the rupture began between Judaism and Christianity, and the grounds upon which Christianity pursued its course, gradually working away from Judaism. Thank you for listening to the Good Christadelphian Talks podcast. We hope this talk helped you in your walk and brightened your day. If you would like to hear more, please subscribe for new episodes.

91. 53:26

    We are on all major podcast platforms and also on YouTube. If you enjoyed this particular talk, please share it with someone else who you think might enjoy it too. For show notes on the talk you just listened to, visit [email protected] or check out the Show Notes section of your podcast player. Please share your thoughts on the talk from this week on our Facebook or Instagram pages where we are at Good Christadelphian Talks or leave a comment on our YouTube channel where these talks are posted as well. If you enjoy listening to the talks that we post and hear one that you think we should share, please tell us about it. You can send us a suggestion using the Contact us tab on our website or message us on any of our social media accounts. Thank you for listening.

92. 54:08

    God bless and talk to you next week.