I cannot call to mind one who ever read the Bible and disbelieved it. Stephen was a man who had read his Bible therein he separates himself from the most of modern people. From beginning to end his speech is scriptural quotation follows quotation like shocks of thunder. What kind of man was Stephen, judged by his speech? He was-ġ. It is fair criticism to infer the man from the speech.
#WICKED WEED BREWING OMNIPRESENCE FULL#
Who really knows the issue and full effect of any action or speech? Life is not marked off in so many inches and done with it may be the beginning of endless other acts nobler than itself. That a man appointed with six others to serve tables should have become the first Christian martyr apologist, and should have given the model for the greatest speeches ever delivered by man, is surely a very miracle of Providence! How little Stephen knew what he was doing. Truly we sometimes borrow from unacknowledged sources, and are sometimes indebted to unknown influences for some of our best inspirations. The man who reported this speech to Luke made it the basis and the model of his own immortal apologies. The Bible is not a text, it is a tone it is not a piece of technical evidence, it is an inspiration.Ģ. They forget that you may not have a single text in support of what you are stating, and yet may have the whole Bible in defence of it. Some persons imagine that they are inspired when they are only technical. There is no statement here made that is not spiritually true, and yet there are a few sentences that may be challenged on some technical ground. You must not therefore hold Stephen responsible for this speech they did not give him an opportunity of revising it. You may catch a little here and there, but the elements that lifted it up into historic importance, it was not in the power of memory to carry. It is supposed that he related it to Luke. How does this speech happen to be here? It would be easy for the memory to carry a sentence or two but who could record so long and highly-informed a speech? There was a young man listening with no friendly ear. (3) The betrayal and murder of the Son of God. (1) “Stiffnecked”-contumacious, rebellious. That the present external state of the Church had no existence before Solomon and that even this was intended from the beginning to be temporary ( Acts 7:47-50). That the external condition of the Church had undergone repeated changes. This position he makes good by showing-ġ. Its point-that all God’s dealings with His people pointed to those very changes which he was accused of advocating. That he was thoroughly conversant with that history. That his faith in that history was as strong as theirs.Ģ. In doing this he secured their attention by giving them to understand-ġ. The sacred history of the Jews which accusers and accused alike revered. “It is not I, but you, who from the first times till now have rejected and spoken against God.” And this element just appearing ( Acts 7:9), and again more plainly ( Acts 7:25-28), and again more pointedly still in Acts 7:35, becomes dominant in Acts 7:39-44, and finally prevails to the exclusion of the others in Acts 7:51-53.
Even more remarkably does the polemic element run through the speech. But simultaneously and parallel with this he also proceeds didactically, showing them that a future prophet was pointed out by Moses as the final lawgiver of God’s people-that the Most High had revealed His spiritual and heavenly nature by the prophets, and did not dwell in temples made with hands. He shows apologetically that so far from dishonouring Moses or God, he believes and holds in mind God’s dealings with Abraham and Moses, and grounds upon them his preaching that so far from dishonouring the temple, he bears in mind its history and the sayings of the prophets respecting it and he is proceeding, when interrupted by their murmurs or inattention, he bursts forth into a holy vehemence of invective against their rejection of God. In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind that a threefold element runs through it. Jacobson.)Īnd he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The question, equivalent to guilty or not guilty, appears to have been put with great mildness, possibly under the influence of the angel-like aspect. The ex-officio president of the council called for the defence against the charge of blasphemy ( Acts 6:13-14).
This functionary was probably Theophilus, son-in-law of Caiaphas. Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
0 kommentar(er)
