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

58 him he also demonstrates how Israel is guilty of them. 32 If this is the case, three emphases, all of which intertwine, may be seen flowing through his speech: fidelity to the Law, and the Temple, and the proper understanding of "this Nazarene, Jesus." In each of these charges, Stephen is seen as faithful while Stephen's accusers are unfaithful. These three emphases can all be seen in Stephen's words in the introduction (6: 14), in the conclusion (7:51-53) and, throughout the body of the speech. Luke clearly sets the stage in the introduction (6: 14-7: 1) when, through the words of the accusers, he announces this threefold theme of Jesus, Temple and Law, for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us. And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. And the high priest said, "Are these things so?" These are all included in Stephen's dramatic conclusion as well: Temple, (7:48-50); Jesus, .., (7:51-52); and Law (7:53). · Stephen addresses his audience for the most part in the form of a historical narrative. For this reason he does not deal with each charge fully and then progress to the becomes clearer that the speech in chapter 7 is not evidence for the martyr's distinctive message. The long speech illustrates how a believer was inspired to speak in hi own defen e; it is an example of the fulfillment of Jesus' promises reported in Lk 12. 1 lf. and in lk 21. 12- 15. The close links between the two Gospel passages and that in Act 6. 8 ff. confirm that Luke u ed this dramatic unit to show how the exalted Lord kept hi promi e to the threaten d hurch. The peech wa a Spirit- or Je u -inspired defence (Lk 12. 12; 21. 15 f. t 6 . 10), unprepared (Lk 21. 14), but eloquent and characteri ed by i d m (Lk 21. 1 f. 6 . 10) ." Doble, "The on of Man aying in Act 7 .56," 72. f. al Mar hall , ct , l , though he argue that tephen wa loyal to the Law but not the temple o that in Mar hall ' iew, tephen' peech i properly a defen e of him lf, though not a r futation f th charge brought again t him. Neil di agree affirming that th p e h 'i n t d ign d t tephen' acquittal of the charge brought again t him, but to pr laim th f ith" eil, 'he Act , 116 . 32 hu the r b com th c unter a u t1 n o l nd of thi di o ed1 nt p r tion o I a 1 in th p t. u d . With h d fen n u hi h h pro n 1t lf t b n m 1th th