Disclaimer: This transcription is provided for informational purposes, reference, and convenience. Please note that it may contain errors, omissions, or spelling mistakes due to the nature of live audio transcriptions. While we strive for accuracy, this document should not be considered a fully authoritative record of the sermon. For clarification, we recommend referring to the original source. Thank you for your understanding and patience. 

We live in an age without moral absolutes. The notion of something being right or something being wrong is repugnant to our society, and without moral absolutes, it is therefore impossible to make moral judgments, and of course our culture would have us believe that those kinds of judgments need to be made on an individual basis. Whatever is right or moral to you is therefore right and moral. Certainly, we should never base any of our judgments upon the Bible or some other religious document, and of course, such an ethos unwittingly does exactly what it argues that we should not do. In fact, what it does is take a moral position of its own, namely that it's wrong to take a moral position. This kind of thinking is often labeled postmodernism, and unfortunately, it has found a very comfortable home in many evangelical churches, churches where the gimmickry of marketing, the cheap grace of easy believeism, and the disdain for doctrinal dogmatism all converge together, making most churches nothing more than religious social clubs. People by the millions whisper little prayers, "Jesus, I accept you," whatever that means, and then they go on with their life as if nothing ever happened. Well, in fact, nothing did happen in most cases. People believe that they come to a saving knowledge of Christ when, in fact all they've done is repeated some prayer, and the problem is most people are never confronted with the reality that all that they do and all that they are is fundamentally offensive to God, and that they are unable to save themselves, and they must cry out for divine mercy, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And of course, as soon as you say that, the pragmatist would say, "Well, now wait a minute. People that come to churches are like consumers, and if you tell them that, they'll never come back. They don't want to hear that. Remember, the customer is sovereign, and we've got to give people what they want." And of course, the postmodernist would say something a little bit different. They would say, "Well, you can't tell people that because, quite frankly, you don't even know if that's true. You might think it's true, but how do we know it's really true?" This is the banner philosophy, by the way, of the very of the very fast-growing movement called "the emerging church," or sometimes you hear it called "the emergent church." And it's sad. This is really a hybrid of the seeker-sensitive movement, and frankly, it's a logical next step because in the seeker-sensitive movement, you have the utter jettisoning of a Bible doctrine, and you begin to fill up churches with people that are not saved, that do not know Christ; people that will read the scriptures and think they're utter foolishness, and so little by little, these people who are still spiritual cadavers resent the truth, and finally you come up with a new hybrid of all of this-the emergent church-that is an even more virulent strain of error that coalesces around three primary essentials in terms of what they reject, namely the rejection of doctrinal certainty, the rejection of scriptural clarity, and the rejection of gospel exclusivity, as someone has said. And frankly, this is nothing more than old liberalism once again slithering into the church and destroying it. These people would deny the inspiration and the authority of Scripture, insisting that nobody can really know the truth. So we need to adopt the hermeneutics of humility, which means basically we must all enjoy the mystery of spiritual confusion, and we must all kind of come together and talk about what we think spirituality really is, so that we can learn from one another. They would, in essence, say that we need to adopt a mindset of camaraderie and of collegiality, even, with those of other faiths. We must be tolerant and respectful of other religions and engage in a dialog with them. We need to have a conversation with them, and that's what you will hear a lot. The word dialog, the word conversation, and so, in other words, what we need to be doing this morning is sitting around and having a conversation with the Buddhists and with the Muslims, with the Jehovah's Witnesses, with the Mormons and and the Hindus, and so on and so forth.

And as we have this conversation, we can therefore each contribute to this notion of spirituality, and we can all learn from one another. That's the idea. Now the question is: Is that what we see in the Bible? Is that what the prophets did in the Old Testament? Is that what Jesus did? Is that what the apostles did? Is there some biblical precedent for this type of thinking? David Wells, in his excellent book Above All Earthly Powers says this, and I quote: "The church is not the retailing outlet of Christianity. Its preachers are not its peddlers, and those who are Christian are not its consumers. It cannot legitimately be had as a bargain, though the marketplace is full of bargain hunters." No," he goes on to say, "let us think instead of the church as Christianity's voice of proclamation, not its sales agent, its practitioner, not its marketing firm, and in that proclamation there is inevitable cultural confrontation. More precisely, there is the confrontation between Christ in and through the biblical word and the rebellion of the human heart. There is confrontation of those whose face is that of a particular culture, but whose heart is that of the fallen world. We cannot forget that." And indeed, dear friends, the key word that he uses is that of condemnation, not conversation. You see, error is that which demands tolerance, whereas truth demands scrutiny. Nowhere in Scripture do you see a single example of the prophets, or of Jesus, or of the apostles, or any anyone else that was following Christ, coming together and having some type of dialog or conversation with those opposing the truth that is presented in the Word of God. You just do not see that. If you consider, for example, the New Testament record of Jesus' ministry alone, if you look at what he did with the scribes and the Pharisees. You will not see much of a dialog, much of a conversation, but you will see a lot of confrontation. I think of Matthew 23. You will remember Jesus gives a scathing denunciation of the hypocrisy and the heresy of the Jewish leaders, and he repeatedly says to them, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" In other words, cursed are you. He called them blind guides, you fools and blind men, you serpents, you brood of vipers. How shall you escape the sentence of hell? Hardly a conversation. In Luke 11, you will recall that a Pharisee invited Jesus over for a friendly lunch with some other Pharisees, perhaps to have a conversation. And the first thing that you will read in that text is Jesus refused to participate in the traditional ceremonial cleansing, which offended the Pharisees. So that was the way the whole dinner started. And then, as they sat down, the first thing Jesus said is this: "Now, you Pharisees, clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness." Pass the bagels. Then he goes on to repeatedly curse them. "Woe to you, Pharisees, for you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God." Would you have loved to been there for that lunch? He went on, "Woe to you, Pharisees, for you love the front seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you, for you are like concealed tombs." Then he turns to the scribes who were the lawyers of the theocracy of Israel, and he says, "Woe to you, lawyers! As well, for you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burden with one of your fingers." And then he finally condemned them for killing the prophets and the apostles, saying that all of that will be charged to that generation. Beloved, please hear this, and we're going to see this today in the text as we look at Stephen's defense, true biblical Christianity is inherently confrontive, and true Christianity mixes with absolutely nothing, because no other religions have anything to offer to the truth, because all other religions are false. God has made that clear, and it is my responsibility as his messenger to remind you of that. When people believe a lie, only the truth can possibly save them.

As we study the scriptures, we see, for example, in the life and ministry of Jesus, Jesus was not interested in being tolerant. He was not interested in being popular. He was not interested in soliciting the spiritual insights of those who disagreed with him. He did not come to them to have a conversation and to dialog. Instead, he was interested in one thing, and that was the salvation of men's souls. You see, the only way you can conquer darkness is with light, not with more darkness. And Jesus made it very clear that he was the light. He said that I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man is going to come to the Father except through me. We are called, dear friends, to turn on the light of truth, even though men love darkness rather than light, and that will be confrontive, and the reason men love darkness rather than light is because their deeds are evil. I'm reminded of Paul's testimony before King Agrippa in Acts 28, where he said that God had rescued him "from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in me." That's what God communicated to Paul. Certainly, that is our calling as well. Please understand, dear friends, nowhere in Scripture do you find an admonition to dialog or to have a conversation with false teachers. They have nothing to contribute to the truth. In fact, in Luke 20, Jesus said that they will receive an even greater condemnation. Beloved, we cannot be both popular and faithful, and you must choose which you want to be. Biblically, our calling is to compassionately and boldly and clearly, forthrightly proclaim the truth to those who differ, and when they reject it, to warn them of God's condemnation, and that's exactly what we see in the text before us this morning with Stephen.

As we will see, his was not a conversation, but rather a message of condemnation, and we're going to see three things that I want to draw your attention to this morning in Stephen's defense before the Sanhedrin. First of all, we will see that his message was one of compassionate courage. Secondly, of biblical correctness, and thirdly, of divine condemnation, and we will see these themes come to life as we examine his defense against the false charge of blasphemy. And instead, he's going to literally turn the tables upon his accusers and accuse them of the very same charge they have accused him.

Now let me give you some background before we look at the text. Remember, the Hellenistic Jewish leaders were, according to verse 10 of chapter six, unable to cope with the wisdom and the spirit with which Stephen was speaking. They were completely outmatched with Stephen's Spirit empowered wisdom, and so what they did is they secretly induced other men to accuse Stephen of blasphemous words against Abraham and Moses and in the law and the temple and of God Himself, and so what they do now is. they bring him before the Sanhedrin, the leaders of the Jewish theocracy of that day, to basically try him. And so, what we have here is a man on trial, in essence, for his very life. And this is a courtroom type of a scene. So somehow, bring yourself to that point in your mind and see Stephen standing in the middle of all of these men who have heard these charges and many of which have already hated Stephen because they hated the Lord Jesus Christ that he represents.

But first of all, let's notice number one is: compassionate courage as we begin in verse one of chapter seven. And, "The high priest said, 'Are these things so?'" referring to the accusations. And in verse two, and Stephen said, "'Hear me, brethren and fathers!'" He begins with a very kind, respectful opening statement. And you will recall, as we studied the life of Stephen, the text has said that he was a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, that he was a man full of grace and power, full of wisdom. And dear friends, we must keep this in mind whenever we come to a point in life when we are required to somehow defend the truth, we must do so with grace. We must do so respectfully and compassionately, knowing that our opponents are spiritually dead. They are blinded by Satan, and that it's ultimately God who will take our compassionate and yet courageous statement and do what he will to save those whom he has chosen. Now remember, before Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders. Remember, he came to Jerusalem, and what did he do when he looked over Jerusalem? He wept. He wept over their disbelief, over their rebellious condition, over their attitudes. And Stephen's compassion, likewise, will find its fullest expression when he later prays for those who are stoning him, in verse 60, Lord, do not hold this sin against them. So this must be our heart. But dear friends, compassion must never give way to compromise. We must remain bold when we are called upon to defend the truth, and again, be forthright. I want you to notice Stephen's compassionate yet courageous defense here as he begins with his review of Abraham, and here we will see a second essential factor necessary for us to model when we must defend the truth, and we must warn others of the condemnation, if they reject it, Stephen's defense and condemnation was not only a message of compassionate courage, but secondly of biblical correctness. And here we're going to see a man who absolutely knew the word of God. We're going to see that repeatedly he quotes many passages of Scripture in his defense, verse two, he says, "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran. Now here he establishes right off the bat his belief in and faith in the God of glory, which is a biblical expression for a holy, sovereign God, the holy sovereign God, the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and this emphasizes as well his own his own Jewishness. And in verse three, he said to him, he says, and said to him, and here, by the way, he begins to quote numerous passages of Scripture from Genesis and Exodus and so on. He says, "Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you. Then he departed from the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. And from there, after his father died, God removed him into this country in which you are now living, and he came, and he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet even when he had no child, he promised that he would give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him. But God spoke to this effect: that his offspring would be aliens in a foreign land, and that they would be enslaved and mistreated for 400 years. So Stephen here is building his case, saying that in essence he loved and he respected Abraham, and Abraham was a man of faith, a man who trusted completely in a sovereign God to bring him into a land that he did not know, a land that he would ultimately give to. His progeny, but also saying that all that Abraham received in his lifetime was his son Isaac. However, the covenant promises to Abraham would remain in effect, even though his offspring were enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years. He goes on in verse seven, and whatever nation to which they shall be in bondage. I myself will judge, said God. After that, they will come out and serve me in this place. So Stephen begins his defense, and next Stephen continues with his purposeful historical survey, reminding them of God's covenants and His sovereign reign. In verse eight, he says, "And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And again, you will recall that this was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant to his descendants, and so on. He gave him the covenant of circumcision, and so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day. And Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 patriarchs. Now, folks, keep in mind here: all the while, Stephen, empowered by the Spirit of God, inspired by the Spirit of God, is building his case against his accusers.

Now remember, before Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders, remember, he came to Jerusalem, and what did he do when he looked over Jerusalem? He wept. He wept over their disbelief, over their rebellious condition, over their attitudes. And Stephen's compassion, likewise, will find its fullest expression when he later prays for those who are stoning him, in verse 60, "'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’” So this must be our heart. But dear friends, compassion must never give way to compromise. We must remain bold when we are called upon to defend the truth, and again, be forthright.

I want you to notice Stephen's compassionate yet courageous defense here as he begins with his review of Abraham, and here we will see a second essential factor necessary for us to model when we must defend the truth, and we must warn others of the condemnation, if they reject it. Stephen's defense and condemnation was not only a message of compassionate courage, but secondly of biblical correctness. And here we're going to see a man who absolutely knew the word of God. We're going to see that repeatedly he quotes many passages of Scripture in his defense. Verse two, he says, "'The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran...'" Now here he establishes right off the bat his belief in and faith in the God of glory, which is a biblical expression for a holy, sovereign God - the holy sovereign God, the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and this emphasizes as well his own his own Jewishness. And in verse three, "...and said to him," and here, by the way, he begins to quote numerous passages of Scripture from Genesis and Exodus and so on, he says,

"'Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you.'

"'Then he departed from the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. And from there, after his father died, God removed him into this country in which you are now living.

"'And he came, and he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet even when he had no child, He promised that He would give it to him as a possession and to His offspring after Him.

"'But God spoke to this effect, that his offspring would be aliens in a foreign land, and that they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years.'"

So Stephen here is building his case, saying that in essence he loved and he respected Abraham, and Abraham was a man of faith, a man who trusted completely in a sovereign God to bring him into a land that he did not know, a land that he would ultimately give to his progeny, but also saying that all that Abraham received in his lifetime was his son Isaac. However, the covenant promises to Abraham would remain in effect, even though his offspring were enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years.

He goes on in verse seven, "'And whatever nation to which they shall be in bondage I myself will judge,' said God, 'After that, they will come out and serve me in this place.'

So Stephen begins his defense, and next Stephen continues with his purposeful historical survey, reminding them of God's covenants and his sovereign reign. In verse eight, he says, "'And He gave him the covenant of circumcision.'" And again, you will recall that this was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant to his descendants, and so on. "'He gave him the covenant of circumcision, and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 patriarchs.'"

Now, folks, keep in mind here: all the while, Stephen, empowered by the Spirit of God, inspired by the Spirit of God, is building his case against his accusers. What a dramatic, electric courtroom scene it must have been. Verse nine,

"'And the patriarchs became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. And yet God was with him,

"'and rescued him from all his afflictions, and granted him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his household.'"

Now, folks, here Stephen is beginning to draw a comparison between the blind leaders of ancient Israel and the very leaders that sat before him, accusing him of these things. It's as if he's saying, "Even as the 12 patriarchs refused to bow to the sovereign purposes of God and receive Joseph -  the deliverer that God sent them, and instead they falsely accused him - even as you falsely accused Jesus and me," he's in essence saying, to the Jewish leaders, "you too are like them."

He goes on in verse 11, "Now a famine came over all Egypt and Canaan in great affliction with it, and our fathers could find no food.

"But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our fathers there the first time.

"And on the second visit, Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph's family was disclosed to Pharaoh.

"And Joseph sent word and invited Jacob, his father, and all his relatives to come to him, and 75 persons in all.

"And Jacob went down to Egypt, and there passed away.

"He and our fathers, and from there they were removed to Shechem and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor and Shechem."

You see, again, all of this proves that Stephen indeed worshiped the one true God - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and so those charges against him had to be false, and he then goes on through the history of Israel by focusing next on Moses. Evidently, they had the blasphemers, the false accusers, had accused him of speaking against Moses, and so here he refutes the second accusation against him, beginning in verse 17, and there we read, "'But as the time of the promise was approaching, which God had assured to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt,

"'until there were arose another king over Egypt who knew nothing about Joseph.

"'It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.

"'And it was at that time that Moses was born, and he was lovely in the sight of God, and he was nurtured three months in his father's home.

"'And after he had been exposed, Pharaoh's daughter took him away and nurtured him as her own son.

"'And Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power and words and deeds.

"'But when he was approaching the age of 40, it entered his mind to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel.

"'And when he saw one of them being mistreated unjustly, he defended him and took vengeance for the oppressed by striking down the Egyptian.

"'And he supposed that his brethren understood...'" now, catch this, "'...that God was granting them deliverance through him, but they did not understand. And on the following day, he appeared to them as they were fighting together, and he tried to reconcile them in peace, saying, "Men, you are brethren. Why do you injure one another?"'"

"'But the one who was injuring his neighbor pushed him away, saying, "Who made you a ruler and judge over us?

"'"You do not do not mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?"

"'And at this remark, Moses fled and became an alien in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.'"

Stephen continues here to lay out his defense, to set the foundation for his ultimate condemnation by reminding them of Israel's rejection of the deliverer that God sent them, namely Moses, reminding them that the ancient Israelites, through their foolish pride and their self-righteousness, could not see what God was doing, and so God caused them to have another 40 years of captivity. This, by the way, of course, is another analogy to Israel's rejection of Jesus, their messianic deliverer.

Because of this, they too must wait even longer for the Messiah to establish his kingdom. Because they, in the day of Stephen, even like those in the days of Moses, rejected the deliverer. He goes on in verse 30,

"'And after 40 years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush.

"'And when Moses saw it, he began to marvel at the sight. And as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And Moses shook with fear and would not venture to look. But the Lord said to him, Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. I have certainly seen the oppression of my people in Egypt, and have heard their groans, and I have come down to deliver them. Come now, and I will send you to Egypt. Then Moses, whom they disowned, saying, "Who made you a ruler and a judge? Is the one whom God sent to be both a ruler and the deliverer, with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush.”

Again, now Stephen is building his case against his accusers. He's giving them yet another example of the spiritual arrogance and blindness of Israel in the days of Moses, and in essence, what he's saying is, even as the patriarchs rejected Joseph, likewise those of Israel rejected yet another deliverer, Moses.

And then Stephen continues to rehearse the tragic history of Israel's persistent rejection of all those that God brings to deliver them. Naturally, this will be true with respect to their rejection of Jesus. That is, the Jewish leaders of the day of Stephen, verse 36. This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for 40 years. This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, "God shall raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren.

Now, folks, this is an obvious reference to Jesus, a not-so-subtle attack on Stephen's accusers. He's reminding them that Moses has said that God shall raise up for you a prophet, a reference to the Messiah. How tragic to think back upon those Jewish leaders, and to even think of the parallels of people in our day, that somehow, even despite all of these facts, they just refuse to see it. All of these amazing facts from their history pointed to the unrelenting problem that the Jews were completely blind to their sin. They were unwilling to look beyond their own self-righteous hypocrisy and pride to be able to see the deliverers that God brought them. John MacArthur made an excellent observation to this end. I wanted to share it with you. He said, and I quote: "Had the Sanhedrin been willing to consider the facts, they could not have missed the parallels between their nation's history and their behavior toward Jesus. He went on to say, "Nor could they have missed the parallels between between Jesus and Moses. Moses humbled himself by leaving Pharaoh's palace. Jesus humbled himself by becoming a man. Moses was rejected at first. So was Jesus." Moses was a shepherd. Jesus is the good shepherd. Moses redeemed his people from bondage in Egypt. Jesus redeems men from bondage to sin. The history of Moses foreshadows the history of Jesus Christ. And indeed, it does. And yet they couldn't see it. They refused to see it. The reason why people reject the light is not because necessarily they can't see it, but because they love the darkness more than the light. And next, Stephen's compassionately courageous and biblically correct message shifts again to focus upon yet another phony accusation levied against him, namely his rejection of the law. In verse 38, he says, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness, together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai. Again, he's referring to Moses here, and who was with our fathers, and he received living oracles to pass on to you, I love that living oracles, and indeed the word of God is living.

"'"I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." And Moses shook with fear and would not venture to look.

"'But the Lord said to him, "Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.

"'"I have certainly seen the oppression of my people in Egypt, and have heard their groans, and I have come down to deliver them; come now, and I will send you to Egypt."

"'Then Moses, whom they disowned, saying, "Who made you a ruler and a judge?" is the one whom God sent to be both a ruler and the deliverer, with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush.'"

Again, now Stephen is building his case against his accusers. He's giving them yet another example of the spiritual arrogance and blindness of Israel in the days of Moses, and in essence, what he's saying is: even as the patriarchs rejected Joseph, likewise those of Israel rejected yet another deliverer, Moses. And then Stephen continues to rehearse the tragic history of Israel's persistent rejection of all those that God brings to deliver them. Naturally, this will be true with respect to their rejection of Jesus, that is, the Jewish leaders of the day of Stephen.

Verse 36, "'This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness for 40 years.

"'This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, "God shall raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren."'"

"'And our fathers,'" he goes on to say, "'were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,

"'saying to Aaron, "Make for us gods who will go before us; for this Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt - we do not know what happened to him."

"'And at that time they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.

"'But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven...'" By the way, the worship of the golden calf was ultimately star worship, astrology worship, because the solar bull was really part of all of this, and that was a constellation of Taurus marking the sun's position at the time of the spring equinox, as I recall, and so all of this was really the the worship of the stars and astrology, and we see a hybrid of this today in many other religions. And certainly, I mean, you can even open your newspapers and see that type of thing going on. And so God gave them over to that.

In verse 42, it says, "'God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven,'" this astrology worship, "'as it is written in the book of the prophets, "It was not to Me that you offered victims and sacrifices 40 years in the wilderness, was it O house of Israel?

"'"You also took along the tabernacle of Moloch,"'" there's the idol that they worship, "'"and the star of the god Rompha, the images which you made to worship them. I also will remove you beyond Babylon."'" And again, here Stephen affirms his love and respect for the law of God, and once again refutes the charges to the contrary, but more importantly, he's drawing another very important parallel with his accusers, as though he was saying here that their fathers - who were unwilling to be obedient to Moses, but repudiated him in their hearts and turned back to Egypt, and who did all of these wicked types of things - likewise, your disobedience is going to result in the same type of divine judgment. You were unwilling to be obedient to Jesus, the deliverer that God has sent. I'm sure that by now they were beginning to get the picture. Stephen was innocent, and yet they were the ones that were guilty. And I'm sure by now their faces were beginning to turn red. You could probably see the juggler veins being exposed. You probably begin to see some gnashing and gritting of teeth, some clenched fists, because Stephen is in essence saying here, even as God abandoned ancient Israel to the consequences of their rebellion and their idolatry by allowing them to fall prey to the Assyrians and the Babylonians, so too Israel's current idolatry will result in judgment.

And then Stephen closes with one final repudiation of yet another false allegation against him, with reference to the temple in verse 44,

"'Our fathers had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as He who spoke to Moses directed him to make it according to the pattern which he had seen.

"'And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David.

"'And David found favor in God's sight and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.

"'But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.'"

Now Stephen's historical survey of the tabernacle and later the temple, clearly reveals his deepest love and respect for that which God had ordained. But notice in his compassionately courageous and biblically correct discourse, he's transitioning now not into some collegial conversation with the Sanhedrin, "Hey guys, you know here's kind of what I'm thinking. What are you thinking? Let's talk about this a little bit." I mean, we're not seeing that here. He doesn't value their opinion. He is not soliciting their point of view, and instead he closes with a statement, and this would be the third in my little outline to you-a statement of divine condemnation. And here he confronts them head-on with the reality that God is not restricted to some building, God transcends all of that.

In verse 48, "'However,'" he says, "'he Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says...'" And here again, he quotes Isaiah 66 one: "'"Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of my feet; What kind of house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what place is there for my repose?

"'"Was it not My hand which made all these things?"'"

And friends, I believe that this text in Isaiah goes on to say what Stephen did not have to say to the Sanhedrin, he didn't finish up the rest of that statement because I believe that the Sanhedrin undoubtedly knew where he was going with that line. Please understand this. He's saying, indeed, God is not limited to a temple. That's what God said through Isaiah 66:1. Nor is he awed by the magnificence and grandeur of some edifice. He is not impressed with external religiosity, with ritual and sacrifice, but rather, and here's what Isaiah went on to say, or God through Isaiah, God says, "But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of heart, and who trembles at My word." And those religious leaders knew full well the rest of that statement. And with this, Stephen now unloads on them in verse 51,

"'You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

"'Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?

"'And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;

"'you who received the law as ordained by angels and yet did not keep it.'"

To summarize all of Stephen's defense, it's as though he is saying, "My love for the God of glory, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, my love for the temple, my love for the law, and for Abraham, and for Moses-all of these things are beyond question. Your accusation of blasphemy against me is utterly ridiculous, but you stiff-necked hypocrites, you who continue the rebellious, idolatrous, murderous tradition of your fathers, you are the blasphemous lawbreakers. In fact, you are even worse than your fathers, Stephen is saying, because your fathers killed the prophets of God, and you have killed the very Son of God, the Messiah. So much for conversation.

And as we will study next week in verse 54, "When they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him.' And of course, we know they then took him out and stoned him. Beloved, I am so glad that when I was a nine-year-old boy, somebody didn't sit down with me and have a conversation. I'm so glad that somebody told me the truth-that I was under the wrath of God because of my sin, unless I repent. Aren't you glad when you think back with that? And many of you I know were saved at a later age. Aren't you glad that somebody didn't say, "Well, you know, this is some of the stuff the Bible says. Well, what do you think?" None of us would have been saved. Aren't you glad that somebody loved you enough to tell you the truth, as offensive as it may have been to you? And you know there were others in that courtroom that day, and I believe very strongly, as I argued last week, and as we will see again coming up, that Saul was there, who later became the Apostle Paul. Aren't you glad that Stephen spoke the truth with biblical correctness, compassionately but courageously, because had he not, perhaps Saul would have never become Paul and been born again.

Dear friends, never compromise the truth by somehow contaminating it with conversation and dialog and input from other people who do not know the truth, who have never been transformed by the truth, they have nothing to offer the truth except poison. And while our message should always be compassionate and courageous, if it is biblically correct, you know what else it will be? It will be offensive to those who do not want to hear the truth, but it will be the power of God unto salvation for those that God will save.

And so may we keep that in mind in this day of incredible apostasy, and may I call you all when it comes time for you to defend your faith, when it comes time for you to present the gospel to somebody who does not know the truth, don't compromise. Be compassionate. Be courageous. Be biblically correct, biblically accurate, but be willing to tell them precisely what the gospel is. Don't be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Let's pray together.

Father, we thank you for this very clear demonstration of compassionate, courageous, biblically correct defense of the truth. Lord, we thank you for Stephen and for his willingness to stand firm even in the midst of enormous persecution. Lord, I'm thankful that there have been many other Stephen's down through the course of human history, and down through the course of redemptive history, we have seen many of them martyred for their faith. And Lord, while we would never ask that for ourselves, yet we would ask you that if indeed we come to that time in our life where we're called upon to stand firm and to persevere in the faith, Lord, we just pray that you will give us the grace to do so, and may we never compromise the truth, because again we know that it is the truth that set us free, that saved us, and we praise you for that, Lord. May we all hear these things and live them out every day of our life until we're called home. We pray this in Jesus' name and for His sake. Amen.