Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 6.djvu/69

Rh (2.) Let us see how this charge is supported and made out; why, truly, when the thing was to be proved, all they can charge him with, is, that he hath spoken blasphemous words against the holy place and the law; and this must be deemed and taken as blasphemy against Moses and against God himself. Thus does the charge dwindle when it comes to the evidence. [1.] He is charged with blaspheming this holy place. Some understand that of the city of Jerusalem, which was the holy city, and which they had a mighty jealousy for. But it is rather meant of the temple, that holy house. Christ was condemned as a blasphemer, for words which were thought to reflect upon the temple, which they seemed concerned for the honour of, then when they by their wickedness had profaned it. [2.] He is charged with blaspheming the law; of which they made their boast, and in which they put their trust, then, when through breaking of the law they dishonoured God, Rom. 2. 23.

Well, but how can they make this out? Why here the charge dwindles again; for all they can accuse him of, is, that they had themselves heard him say (but how it came in, or what explication he gave of it, they think not themselves bound to give account,) that this Jesus of Nazareth, who was so much talked of, shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered us. He could not be charged with having said any thing to the disparagement either of the temple or of the law. The priests had themselves profaned the temple, by making it not only a house of merchandise, but a den of thieves; yet they would be thought zealous for the honour of it, against one that had never said any thing amiss of it, but had attended it more as a house of prayer, according to the true intention of it, than they had. Nor had he ever reproached the law, as they had.

But, First, He had said, Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place; destroy the temple, destroy Jerusalem, it is probable that he might say so; and what blasphemy is it against the holy place, to say, that it should not be perpetual any more than Shiloh was, and that the just and holy God would not continue the privileges of his sanctuary to those that abuse them? Had not the prophets given the same warning to their fathers, of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans? Nay, when the temple was first built, had not God himself given the same warning; This house, which is high, shall be an astonishment, 2 Chron. 7. 21. And is he a blasphemer then, who tells them that Jesus of Nazareth, if they continue their opposition to him, will bring a just destruction upon their place and nation, and they may thank themselves? Those wickedly abuse their profession of religion, who, under colour of that, call the reproofs given them for their disagreeable conversations, blasphemous reflections upon their religion.

Secondly, He had said, This Jesus shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. And it was expected that in the days of the Messiah they should be changed, and that the shadows should be done away when the substance was come; yet this was no essential change of the law, but the perfecting of it; Christ came, not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law; and if he changed some customs that Moses delivered, it was to introduce and establish those that were much better; and if the Jewish church had not obstinately refused to come into this new establishment, and adhered to the ceremonial law, for aught I know, their place had not been destroyed; so that for putting them into a certain way to prevent their destruction, and for giving them certain notice of their destruction if they did not take that way, he is accused as a blasphemer.

Lastly, We are here told how God owned him when he was brought before the council, and made it to appear that he stood by him; (v. 15.) All that sat in the council, the priests, scribes, and elders, looking stedfastly on him, being a stranger, and one they had not yet had before them, they saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel. It is usual for judges to observe the countenance of the prisoner, which sometimes is an indication either of guilt or innocence. Now Stephen appeared at the bar with the countenance as of an angel.

1. Perhaps it intimates no more than that he had an extraordinarily pleasant, cheerful countenance, and there was not in it the least sign either of fear for himself or anger at his persecutors; he looked as if he had never been better pleased in his life than he was now when he was called out to bear his testimony to the gospel of Christ thus publicly, and stood fair for the crown of martyrdom. Such an undisturbed serenity, such an undaunted courage, and such an unaccountable mixture of mildness and majesty, there was in his countenance, that every one said, he looked like an angel; enough surely to convince the Sadducees that there are angels, when they saw before their eyes an incarnate angel.

2. It should rather seem that there was a miraculous splendour and brightness upon his countenance, like that of our Saviour, when he was transfigured; or, at least, that of Moses, when he came down from the mount; God designing thereby to put honour upon his faithful witness, and confusion upon his persecutors and judges, whose sin would be highly aggravated, and would be indeed a rebellion against the light, if, notwithstanding this, they proceeded against him. Whether he himself wist that the skin of his face shone or no, we are not told; but all that sat in the council saw it, and, probably, took notice of it to one another, and an arrant shame it was, that, when they saw, and could not but see by it that he was owned of God, they did not call him from standing at the bar to sit in the chief seat upon the bench. Wisdom and holiness make a man's face to shine, and yet these will not secure men from the greatest indignities; and no wonder, when the shining of Stephen's face would not be his protection; though it had been easy to prove that if he had been guilty of putting any dishonour upon Moses, God would not thus have put Moses's honour upon him.

CHAP. VII. When our Lord Jesus called his apostles out to be employed in services and sufferings for him, he told them, that yet the last shall be first, and the first last; which was remark ably fulfilled in St. Stephen and St. Paul, who were both of them late converts, in comparison of the apostles, and yet got the start of them, both in services and sufferings; for God, in conferring honours and favours, often crosses hands. In this chapter, we have the martyrdom of Stephen, the first martyr of the Christian church, who led the van in that noble army. And therefore his sufferings and death are more largely related than of any other, for direction and encouragement to all those who are called out to resist unto blood, as he did. Here is, I. His defence of himself before the council, in answer to the matters and things he stood charged with, the scope of which is to shew that it was no blasphemy against God, nor any injury at all to the glory of his name, to say, that the temple should be destroyed, and the customs of the ceremonial law changed. And, 1. He shews this by going over the history of the Old Testament, and observing, that God never intended to confine his favours to that place, or that ceremonial law; and that they had no reason to expect he should; for the people of the Jews had always been a provoking people, and had forfeited the privileges of their peculiarity: nay, that that holy place and that law were but figures of good things to come, and it was no disparagement at all to them to say that they must give place to better things, v. 1..50. And then, 2. He applies this to them that prosecuted him, and sat in judgment upon him, sharply reproving them for their wickedness by which they had brought upon themselves the ruin of their place and nation, and then could not