The Relationship of Jewish and Gentile Believers to the Law Between A.D. 30 and 70 in the Scripture

55 saying, 'We heard him say, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands."' Yet not even so did their testimony agree" (Mark 14:57-59). Each of the respective Gospel writers indicates that these charges were false, though only John explains why they were false: "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'. The Jews therefore said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking of the temple of His body" (John 2: 19-21). If the charges against Stephen are modeled after those against Christ then it would appear that they are completely false . As Luke renders the circumstances which precipitate Stephen's speech the reader is encouraged to understand that Stephen is innocent of the charges brought against him. If this is correct, one would expect the defendant's words to corroborate this conclusion. ..; The Speech of Stephen · Stephen's speech may appear at first to be not only unrelated to the accusations brought against him but also a pointless recital of Jewish history. 27 Many have seen Stephen' and the charges about destroying the Temple). He summarizes, "En comparant 6: 11 et 6: 12b- 14, on peut done dire que le but des additions lucaniennes a ete d 'etablir un parallelisme entre Etienne et Jesus ," Boismard , "Le Martyre D 'Etienne : Actes 6:8- 8:2," 191. Jesus' other words about the destruction of the Temple (Matt. 24: 1-2; Luke 19:44; 21:5-6) do not ingle out the Temple as an institution which mu t be replaced, but rather link its destruction with that of the city. "It is primarily the city, and the Temple onl incidentall , which i threatened because of its resi tance to God (Lk 13 .34-35; 19.41-44; 21.6)," Doble, "The on of Man aying in Acts 7 .56," 80 . M r imp rtantly, the form of the a u ation against tephen echo the charge brought again t Je u at hi trial whi h ar a di tortion f hi di cus ion after the first clean ing of the Temple (Mark 14:5 -59 and John 2: 19- 1). 27 Dupont argu forcefully that t phen ' p e h reall do r th agam t him . Th early p rt of the peech (7:2- 4) ma eem t be f h1 to y ut 1s in r lit n imp rtant rat ri 1 I m nt in th di ur , n m 1 th narratio . • , a na ratw ne d it pa nti ip r ur l'argumentatio, m i impl m nt 1 pr ·p r r. pr ar t10n 1 m ill ure t 11 qui he 1 de l' ar um ntation, qui nti nt, d m Ill r di emm' e, 1 l' 't t d in pp r nt ( emina probationum) n narrrario 1 n ondu1t mm un ...,n., ...... ue bj t1f, uqu 1 1 ud1t ur n p u nt