Rev: 3/21/04

The Jews on Trial
The Story of Stephen

Remember that fifth item we passed over in verse 24: "to seal up vision and prophet"? (lit. trans.) In Acts 6 and 7 we have the story of Stephen. He was chosen to be a deacon, and being a holy man, he preached the gospel of Jesus. The Pharisees called him to answer for his heretical (to them) preaching. He answered with a litany of the history of Israel and this:

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.
52 "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;
53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it. " Acts 7:51-53

At the end of his speech:

55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;
56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55-56

Stephen was then stoned to death. Often as I read this story, I wondered why such an insignificant person in the church got so much press in the book of Acts. After all, when Paul went to Athens, the story of his encounter at the Areopagus occupies only twenty verses, fully two thirds less than the story of Stephen. What could possibly be so important about what he had to say? To understand we must explore the OT record to learn of God's usual and customary way of dealing with man.

Throughout history, God has dealt with man through covenants. Even in Eden, there was a covenant. It stated that if Adam and Eve would not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they would continue to enjoy life in the Garden. If they ate of the Tree, they would begin the process of dying. When they did in fact eat of the Tree, God did not summarily throw them out of the Garden. He conducted a trial. This trial contains all the elements we recognize from a modern trial. The parties are identified, the fact of one party's faithfulness to the covenant is declared, the other parties are accused of unfaithfulness, witnesses are called to corroborate the charges, and a verdict is made.

In the Garden, the parties are identified in Gen 3:8. The Garden in which Adam and Eve lived stood as implied testimony to the goodness of God. Verse 11 charges them with violating the covenant. Adam and Eve are the witnesses in verses 10, 12 and 13. With all the testimony presented, God pronounces the verdict in verses 14-24. In this case, God himself prosecuted the case. He also prosecutes the case in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4). But later on God repeatedly sends his prophets to serve as prosecuting attorney. It is His regular orderly way of dealing with man.

This process is called a covenant lawsuit, and is found over thirty times in scripture. It is also referred to as an "investigative judgment," because in it the charges against man are investigated, and a verdict is reached. Following the investigative judgment, God then punishes in the executive phase. This entire process is parallel with our modern judicial process where the investigative phase of a trial establishes the facts, and then the executive phase carries out the penalty.

We may now return to Stephen. The date is AD34, the end of the seventy weeks. The conditions and length of probation for the Jews had been established in Dan 9:24. The time of probation has expired, and the Jews failed to accept the Messiah. God could simply declare their guilt and punishment, but that would be contrary to His orderly way of dealing with man. God sent a prophet to prosecute the final covenant lawsuit against the Jews.

Stephen is not identified by the title prophet in scripture, but he has all the earmarks. Acts 6:8 identifies Stephen as being full of the Holy Spirit with grace and power. He performed miracles. These are the NT marks of an apostle, which is nothing more than the NT equivalent of the OT "prophet." But Stephen's actions recorded in Acts 7 make him the last prophet to the Jews per se . He is God's prosecuting attorney.

The trial begins with Stephen being brought into the presence of the leaders of the Jews. The Elders and Scribes bring him before the Sanhedrin on false charges of blasphemy. With the leaders of the rebellion against God before him, Stephen ignores the case against him, and brings God's charges. God's presence is announced in Acts 6:15 where Stephen's face is noted to be like the face of an angel. Then Stephen recounts numerous occasions on which God has fulfilled his good promises to the Jews (Acts 7:2-50). It is particularly noteworthy that in this section Stephen uses "our fathers" to describe the Jews. Throughout this section Stephen is identifying himself as a Jew. There are examples of apostasy scattered through this part of the speech, but they serve primarily to point out how God brought blessings to the Jews in spite of their evil deeds.

In verse 51 the entire tone changes. Stephen now charges "you men" with refusing the message of the Holy Spirit. He is separating himself from the apostate Jews. Their fathers killed the prophets who had been sent to them. They murdered the Messiah. And at this point, we must review the trial of Jesus.

There were definite standards for how a Jewish trial must be conducted in the time of Christ. These standards were established to absolutely prevent the conviction of an innocent man. In fact, it was felt that a conviction any capital offense by the Sanhedrin more often than every seven years constituted a blight on that august body. The Sanhedrin was, in fact, constituted with a duty to acquit if at all possible. To this end, the 71 members of the Council were seated in a semicircle around each witness. No member had a better view than any other. The newest member questioned the accused first, so that no one would be intimidated by the opinion of an elder. Witnesses were sequestered, so that no witness would be able to adjust his testimony to match that of any other. If it was found that there was perjured testimony, the rules called for an immediate acquittal. And the trial must be conducted by the ritually pure, so it must be after the morning sacrifice, and before the evening sacrifice, placing it in the daytime.

If no witnesses could be found, a confession was not an acceptable testimony of guilt. It had to be corroborated by at least two witnesses. Finally, once all testimony had been taken, the Sanhedrin had to adjourn and consider the guilt or innocence on the following day prior to reaching a verdict. If new testimony came available then, they had to hear it and wait yet another day before reaching a verdict. During their deliberations, if an immediate unanimous guilty verdict was reached, it was deemed to be a mob action and the accused was to be acquitted. Finally, when the guilty man was being taken out another day later for execution, a man with a flag was stationed at the Sanhedrin. If at any time new testimony was proffered, the flag was dropped, and a man riding backwards on a horse being led toward the execution site would call out that there were new witnesses. The trial would then begin again. As a final safeguard, if anyone could bring forward a new legal theory which led to a "not guilty" verdict for the accused, that person was granted life membership in the Sanhedrin on the spot.

We may now consider the trial of Jesus. The first violation of law is that the trial was held at night (Mark 14:12ff, esp. 53). Next, there was perjured testimony (Mark 14:56-59). This alone should have granted acquittal. Jesus exercised his right to remain silent, so that no testimony could be corroborated (Mark 14:61a). So the High Priest changes legal theories. He solicits blasphemy from Jesus. This is outside the bounds of the law, and should again have granted acquittal. Of course, for Jesus it was not blasphemy, but that did not matter. However, there had to be corroborating witnesses for this to allow conviction, and none were brought forward so acquittal was again required. When Jesus answered, the High Priest tore his robe (Mark 14:63a). This was a death penalty offense for him, but it was ignored. The High Priest then cried out for a verdict of guilty, again violating the rule that deliberations must wait for a day (Mark 14:63b-64a). The immediate unanimous guilty verdict (Mark 14:64b) again required acquittal, but instead Jesus was rushed to Pilate (Mark 15:1), and thence to the cross. That morning, Judas came to them and attempted to return the blood money, declaring Jesus' innocence (Matt 27:3-4). This should have required a rehearing, but Judas was snubbed. The execution went forward. We now return to Stephen.

Stephen does not need to call witnesses, since they have already been called in the form of the accounts of Moses and the prophets which he has already quoted. The Sanhedrin recognized the process, since it was one which was recorded many times in scripture. They were also witnesses against themselves, since most of them were on the Council and complicit when Jesus was convicted. They knew that they had violated at least seven cardinal rules of law in rushing Jesus to the cross. They knew that this constituted murder They were "cut to the quick" (v. 54), and were ready to assault Stephen when he had a vision of Christ.

The vision recorded in Acts 7:55-56 is of particular importance. Just as the form of the covenant lawsuit was well known, so was the divine courtroom. The ancient Jews did not have a separate court, but instead had hearings in front of the sovereign. His regent would be seated below and to the right of him during this proceeding. "Being seated at the right hand of power" describes this status. When it was time for the verdict, the regent would stand. This is exactly what Stephen declares in verse 56. His vision is of Jesus, who these very men were responsible for murdering, standing as the judge to pronounce the guilty verdict on the Jews. They are unable to tolerate being declared guilty, so they rush Stephen out and kill him so that they will not have to hear the verdict. They "shut up vision and prophet."

Now we must pause for a moment here. This is not the way that the Jews should meet the fifth probationary condition in verse 24. But in an ironic twist, they finalize their failure to meet their probation by fulfilling it by an alternate method. Instead of becoming God's true servants, so that a prophet would not be needed, they killed God's prophet so that none would be available.

Stephen was the last prophet of the Old Testament tradition. His covenant lawsuit terminated the seventy weeks and the end of the old covenant. With the declaration of guilt, the Jews ceased to be the chosen people, and the Gospel and prophecy went to the Gentiles. Spiritual Israel was now the beneficiary of all prophetic promises. The "time of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) had begun. This is worth repeating. When prophecy was "seal(ed) up", it was finished. The final fulfillments were in the books. There was nothing left for the hereditary people of God. The final bell had rung, and the Jews no longer had a place in prophecy other than their ultimate desolation. God, in His new covenant, had chosen a different people to carry out their half of the deal. From that point on, the church was Israel.

The ultimate desolation of the Jews was a result of their failure to keep the covenant, as we noted earlier. It could not happen until after probation had closed for them as a result of the covenant lawsuit brought by Stephen. So all the parts of this prophecy regarding punishment are not within the seventy weeks, but are instead after them. The time between the close of probation and the beginning of punishment is not defined. When Judah was sufficiently wicked, God declared that they would go into exile, but did not send Babylon instantly. Similarly, AD34 was the end of the seventy weeks, but there was more to come. When we read Jesus' Olivet discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), we find that there was more to come. Specifically Luke 21:20-22 states:

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand.
21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

The church was not to leave Jerusalem until it saw the sign of armies surrounding the city. This happened in AD66, when the Zealots induced the priests to stop offering prayers for the benefit of Caesar. This was regarded as an act of rebellion, and Cestius Gallius marched on Jerusalem with six legions. With victory in his grasp, he inexplicably withdrew, and the Christians left the city. Four years later the city was utterly destroyed.

Daniel's prophecy identifies some key elements of how God's judgment would be poured out on the Jews. The second thought in verse 27 is:

27 ...and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate...

The Expositor's Bible Commentary notes of this passage that the expression "wing of abominations" must be familiar to Daniel and his readers. In other words, it is an idiomatic expression. The expression “on the wings of” occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible, all in poetic passages. In 2 Samuel 22:11, Psalm 18:10, and Psalm 104:3, we find God traveling “on the wings of the wind.” In Psalm 139:9 the psalmist considers traveling on “the wings of the dawn.” In these verses, the expression suggests swiftness, inevitability and immediacy. Thus, the phrase in Daniel means, simply, “the desolator will sweep in, carried by the irresistable power of abominations.”

About AD 66, the Zealots and other groups of rebels fomented a revolt to throw off the Roman yoke. Although there were several leaders, such as Simon ben Giora, the most influential was John, son of Levi, of Gischala in Galilee. The revolt was in itself an abomination, but worse was to follow. The Zealots murdered over 12,000 priests. Later, as the revolt reached its peak in AD 70, over 8,000 were murdered in the Temple grounds and left unburied, a further abomination. The bloody rebels used the Temple itself as their final stronghold in Jerusalem. The end of the revolt was the complete destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, with loss of a million Jewish lives. The desolation was complete.

A second idiomatic usage of kenaph may be noted. The word is used to mean a corner of the tallit or prayer shawl. There the Israelites were commanded to place tzitzit (6738) or tassels, which were to remind them of the 613 mitzvot (4687) in the Torah. Malachi 4:2 tells of the "sun of righteousness" who would arise "with healing in his wings." This was the promise on which the woman with the issue of blood (Matt 9:20-22, cf. Mark 5:25-34, Luke 8:43-48) relied when she touched the hem (Greek kraspedon 2899, a tassel of twisted wool, the tzitzit) of Jesus' garment. A Jew who was wearing the tallit with tzitzit was said to be "under His wings" (Psa 91:4, Ruth 2:2) since the tallit was a sign of obedience to God. Further, God is likened to an eagle, who lifts Israel on his wings (Ex 19:4, Deut 32:11).

We may now identify the idiom "wing of abominations." Since the Jews were the only ones who wore the tallit, the idiom must refer to a Jew. But in specific, it refers to a Jew wearing the tallit who does abominable things. And in a second way, we can see that "wings of abominations" refers to the Zealots, with John, son of Levi identified pars pro toto as the desolator. (Pars pro toto is a Latin phrase meaning "part for all." It refers to a single person being used as the corporate identity of a group. A common biblical example is the use of Jacob in place of "the Jews.") 

27... even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

The "wing of abominations" is the Jewish revolt and its aftermath. The one who makes desolate is John, son of Levi, who stands pars pro toto (part for all) as the corporate image of revolt against God. He, through his complicit countrymen, caused the desolation of Jerusalem. And complete destruction, just as decreed in Deuteronomy 28:15ff, was poured out on the Jews. The handful of survivors were dispersed, and Jerusalem became a Roman city, off limits to Jews.

The Roman army is identified by Jesus in his Olivet discourse as the instrument of the desolation. It may also be considered to be a type of the abomination.

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Luke 21:20

15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place let the reader understand,
16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; Matt 24:15-16

14 "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be let the reader understand, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Mark 13:14

It is worthwhile to take a small side trip at this point. In this focus, one "abomination of desolation" is the Roman army surrounding Jerusalem. But how is this a desolating sacrilege (also a good translation)? The Roman legions (units of 6,000 men) marched under unit banners. These were not treated in the manner that we would treat a unit standard today. Instead, Tertullian points out that the legionnaires, who were totally uneducated, treated the banners as gods and worshipped them. They also worshipped Caesar as a God. Finally, they offered unclean sacrifices (swine) to their gods. To the Jews, a greater sacrilege would be hard to imagine. Finally, add in the brutal nature of the Roman army, and you have desolations at hand. So, what good did it do the believers?

The believers left town. Not only had they seen the armies surrounding Jerusalem, they had seen abominations committed by the Zealots. With both the idiomatic understanding of Daniel and the interpretive understanding recorded by Luke, it would have been difficult for the believers not to understand the signs of the times. In the spring of 70AD, Titus' army wiped out Jerusalem during the Passover festival, with massive loss of life. Not one believer is thought to have died. This was one manifestation of the "Abomination of Desolation". As we have seen, it took other forms as Rome continued into the Papacy.

While Jesus clearly identifies the Roman army, he also tells of the desolation that will follow.

22 because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 "Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people,
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Luke 21:22-24

It is clear that Jesus is speaking in a "blended" manner. His remarks apply to both the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the tribulation at the end of time. The best description for the Roman devastation is found in Deuteronomy 28:

49 "The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand,
50 a nation of fierce countenance who shall have no respect for the old, nor show favor to the young.
51 "Moreover, it shall eat the offspring of your herd and the produce of your ground until you are destroyed, who also leaves you no grain, new wine, or oil, nor the increase of your herd or the young of your flock until they have caused you to perish.
52 "And it shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the LORD your God has given you.
53 "Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy shall oppress you.
54 "The man who is refined and very delicate among you shall be hostile toward his brother and toward the wife he cherishes and toward the rest of his children who remain,
55 so that he will not give even one of them any of the flesh of his children which he shall eat, since he has nothing else left, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy shall oppress you in all your towns.
56 "The refined and delicate woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground for delicateness and refinement, shall be hostile toward the husband she cherishes and toward her son and daughter,
57 and toward her afterbirth which issues from between her legs and toward her children whom she bears; for she shall eat them secretly for lack of anything else, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy shall oppress you in your towns. Deut 28:49-57

This is an uncannily accurate description of the events of the Roman siege of Jerusalem even down to the cannibalism. The Temple was utterly destroyed, so that, as Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:2 "not one stone here shall be left upon another". It is difficult to imagine desolation worse than this. But the Christians who heeded Jesus' admonition to run when they saw the "abomination of desolation" were spared. Only the unbelieving Jews suffered. This scene is repeated in 12:1 where the faithful are spared from the "time of distress" at the end of time. The third thought in verse 27 is:

27... even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

The "one who makes desolate" describes the same two players. The proximate cause of the desolation was the Jews themselves, and the "one" in view is specifically the Zealots, led by John, son of Levi. Rome, including its Satanic sponsor, appears in the greater view, as seen in the amplified view of the prophecy given by Jesus. We need to keep in focus the fact that the little horn of the vision (hazon) of Daniel 8 is Rome in both its pagan and Papal aspects. In the same way, the pagan (secular) aspect of Rome begins with the desolation of physical Israel. The Papal (spiritual) aspect of Rome continues with the desolation of spiritual Israel until the "times of the Gentiles" are completed. This phrase refers to the church era, where believers come to God without the benefit of Jewish evangelism. This evil continues until the little horn is destroyed by God at the end of time.

Putting It All Together

The 70 weeks began with the decree of restoration by Artaxerxes I in 457BC. No record exists of the completion date for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This is as it should be, since rebuilding is not the intent of the prophesied decree. However, the end of the first week would be the Jubilee, which would be the fitting celebration of restoration. The restoration was accompanied by numerous troubles as prophesied. 483 years after the decree (69 weeks), Jesus (the Messiah) was baptized. He ministered for 3 1/2 years and was crucified "in the midst of the week". The Gospel continued to be affirmatively preached to the Jews for another 3 1/2 years, completing the 70th week in 34AD.

The Jews were given 490 years to get their act together. When this time of probation expired, God used Stephen as his prosecuting attorney to bring a covenant lawsuit. The verdict was "Guilty" and the Jews lost their birthright blessings. They were given "to a nation producing the fruit" (Matt 21:43).

We should not look for fulfillment of the six conditions in Daniel 9:24, since they were not fulfilled! But we should be aware that we have the same conditions to meet. And if we do not, a worse fate will await us in the lake of fire after our conviction at the Great White Throne.

Every element of the seventy weeks prophecy was completed in perfect sequence and time. As always, God's prophecy was exact in every detail. With it completed, we may now consider the issues left unanswered in Dan 8:14's somewhat cryptic statement.