The Pulpit Commentary — Acts — Volume 1 — Section 250

spirituality of Christ's mission; but this Stephe1;1- saw ·on its anta.~onistic side, and therefore we cannot wonder that he should excite such prejudice aCJ'ainst himself. Olshaueen wull says, "'l'he Jews, with a disposition of mind that looked to outward things, did not rightly comprehend the thoughts of Stephen, but took a distorted view of them. What he had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit of Christ, whose design it was to consecrate the world as a great temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart, that the Jews conceived as a purpose to be accomplished by violence, and thus they ascribed to him the destruction of the temple and the abolition of Jewish usages--things which he had never attempted." We may dwell on- I. THE FORM OF THE BPEE0H AB ADAPTED TO THE JEWISH AUDIENCE, It is a his- torical resume. With such e. Jewish audience is always pleased, and for such marked attention and interest can now be secured. It is remarkable: 1. For the knowledge of Scripture which it reveals-a knowledge not concerned only with facts and person8, but with principles and their permanent applications. 2. For the skill with which he selected his Scripture points; so that not until "he had patiently traversed the whole period from Abraham to Solomon, selecting such facts as made for his own case, and setting them in skilful array, did he suffer one word to escape him at which even his most adverse hearer could take open exception." Stephen illustrates for us the power that lies in (1) command of Scripture; (2) self-command; (3) skill in the art of rhetoric and of argument; (4) spiritual insight of the deeper meanings of Divine revelation. II. THE RELATION OF THE SPEECH TO THE BPECIFI0 CHARGES. He was accused of teaching what would materially change the old Jewish customs. He replies in effect (1) that God had given a new revelation, and that he was only asking them to hear God's message and receive God's Messenger; and t2) that, in rejecting a new message from God, they were only acting as their fathers had done in all the previous genera- tions. This Stephen, in a very subtle way, hinted at by his historical references; but he reserved the full unfolding of it until the close of his speech. 'fhen he presses two points home upon the heart and conscience of his audierwe. (1) In reference to tbe charge that he proposed the destruction of the temple and its ritual, he urged that God's direct spiritual dealings with men were and always had been strictly independent of forms, or ritual, or temple. And (2) in reference to the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, he urged that the Jews, under every succeeding form of Divine revela- tion, had resisted the Spirit. Dr. Dykes says, "As often as it bad pleased God, through chosen messengers of his will, to lead Israel forward through a new moment of change into a fresh spiritual epoch of blessing, ~o often had God's thoughts been misunderstood, his purposes hindered, and his messenger rejected by the bulk oflsrael. This had been their national failing-to cling to the present and material, whenever God was calling them to higher spiritual good. This they had done so often that their doing it now, by rejecting e. spiritual Christ and idolizing a material temple, was only of a piece with their entire history." We must suppose that the excitement of the Sanhedrim, who detected his point, and the clamour of the crowd, who followed the cue given by the council, reached at last such a height that Stephen could only close his speech suddenly with the few intense words given us in vers. 51-53. It was a noble boldness and e. sublime testimony, but we cannot wonder that it fed the flame of excite- ment and made a violent death for the heroic champion almost e. certainty. There are times in life when what colder natures call imprudence is the immediate duty to which men are called. Stephen's burning words have carried their conviction to human consciences through the long Christian ages. Literature has no intenser warning against losing the spiritual by doggedly clinging to the bare and formal and literal. -R.T. Ver. 6, etc.-Tlie ethics of Scripture quotation. Much has been said, in modern times, about the importance of quoting from other wri_ters o: speakers with _the utmost ~orrectness and precision, giving the exact language 1n which the other m~nd ~lothed !ts thought. And, from the point of view of a somewhat n_arrow theory of msp1rat1on, tt has been urged that all scriptural quotations should give the very words of the Scripture writer, Agl\inst makinll:, this bondage injurious and painful, two considera-  246 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [011, VII, 1-60,