For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us.
ακηκοαμεν γαρ αυτου λεγοντος οτι ιησους ο ναζωραιος ουτος καταλυσει τον τοπον τουτον και αλλαξει τα εθη α παρεδωκεν ημιν μωσης
7 Church Fathers comment on this verse
"Jesus," they say, "of Nazareth," adding this as a reproach, "will destroy this place and change the customs." They said the same when they accused Christ: "You who destroy the temple" (Mt 27:40). They greatly revered the temple, near which they even wished to live, and likewise the name of Moses. Notice that the accusation is twofold. "He will destroy," they say, "this place and change the customs." It is not only twofold, but grave and full of danger.
"For we have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth"; Nazareth is said in reproach. "Will destroy this place." They said the same of Christ: "You who destroy this temple" (Mt 27:40). They had great fear for the temple. But the accusation was twofold: that He intended to change the customs, and that He intended to introduce other customs.
Yet the Pharisees themselves tolerated Christianity only for a time. When it began to threaten them with danger, they too rose against it in persecution. This persecution was stronger because they themselves possessed greater authority and power. They also already had against the Christians the voice of another sect, which usually rivaled them. Thus they first put to death Stephen, one of the deacons of the Church of Jerusalem. They accused him of blasphemy against God and Moses, as though he had said that Jesus of Nazareth would come, destroy the temple, and change the customs established by Moses.
But we already know from the history of the apostles how the people saved the preachers of Christ from such plots (Acts 4:21; Acts 5:26). Even the exemplary and holy life of Christians involuntarily inspired outsiders with respect and goodwill toward them (Acts 2:47; Acts 5:13).
Still more, the beneficent miracles of the apostles drew the people to them. Therefore, in order to destroy Stephen, his enemies first had to arm the people against him.
This was not difficult with a credulous crowd. It was enough somehow to inflame the crowd's religious fanaticism. One needed only to hint that their benefactor and wonderworker preached differently from what they had believed until then.
Then the crowd forgot all his benefactions and rose against him with implacable malice. Stephen's enemies knew this very well.
So they instructed certain men to say, "We heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God" (v. 11). The people believed them, and Stephen was seized as an evildoer.
This was exactly what the members of the Sanhedrin wanted. They quickly convened a formal assembly and opened the trial of Stephen.
The false witnesses stated the accusation: "This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place," that is, the temple, "and the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us" (vv. 13-14).
The charge was grave. The eyes of all present turned involuntarily toward the place where the accused stood.
But as they looked at him, they saw his face as the face of an angel. The grace of God, with which Stephen's soul was filled, was reflected at that moment on his face with heavenly light. He looked like a dweller of heaven.
However false the accusation made against Stephen by the false witnesses was, some truth must have lain at its root.
Of course, it could not be that Stephen "spoke blasphemous words against Moses and God, against this holy place and the law." That would mean that he spoke disrespectfully, even insultingly, about the temple of Jerusalem and all the institutions and rites of the Mosaic law.
On the contrary, the apostolic Christians were zealous in visiting the temple during divine service (Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1; Acts 5:12).
Clearly, they not only did not regard observance of the rites of the Old Testament, God-given law as contradicting the Christian religion. They even treated them with reverence and took part in their observance.
Therefore it could not be that Stephen, a most pious member of the Christian community, spoke in any way insultingly about the holy temple and the law during his disputes with his opponents.
Yet a Christian preacher could not dispute with Jews about matters of faith without touching on the thought of the temporary significance of the Old Testament religion.
Stephen also expressed this, among other things, before his opponents. This is clear from the following words of the accusation: "We have heard," the false witnesses said, "how he said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us."
This thought concerned the merely preparatory significance of the Old Testament religious institutions. Therefore they are now neither necessary nor obligatory for those who recognize, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah who has appeared.
Stephen, of course, expressed this thought with full reverence for the God-given law of Moses.
But the false witnesses tore this thought out from the sequence of other thoughts in Stephen's speeches. They tried to present it in the form and character of an insult, a blasphemy against the holy temple and the law.
Enraged by such preaching, and feeling themselves unable to withstand it any longer, the Hellenists resorted to violence.
They stirred up the people and the elders against him, spreading through bribed false witnesses the rumor that he “spoke blasphemous words against Moses and God, against this holy place,” that is, the temple, “and against the law.”
Using this support, they suddenly attacked St. Stephen and handed him over to the judgment of the Sanhedrin.
The usual inquiry began from the tribunal, which had already stained itself with crying injustice and bloodthirstiness. The indispensable members of this tribunal appeared: false witnesses.
They insisted that the accused had said “that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”
These false testimonies were all the more dangerous because they were based on a distortion of the truth. St. Stephen had indeed preached that Christ had brought the whole Old Testament divine economy to its completion and abolition.
But this abolition was to be accomplished not through violence, but through the inward action of the Spirit of God. It had already begun to take place.
Stephen wished solemnly to explain this truth before the Sanhedrin itself. Despite all its prejudice against the preacher of the hated name, it could not fail to marvel at the beauty and God-enlightened face of this man.
It “saw his face as the face of an angel.”
“How he said”: the following words are not Stephen’s own words, but words placed in his mouth by the false witnesses, or his words interpreted by them in their own way.
“Nazarene,” in the original with the addition “this,” is a contemptuous name for the Lord in the mouth of the false witnesses. Compare Acts 7:40, Acts 19:26, and Lk 15:30.
“Jesus, this Nazarene, will destroy this place,” that is, the temple. The accusation is the same one brought against the Lord Himself (Mt 26:61), as a criminal offense.
“He will change the customs,” and so forth. These are customs based on the God-given law of Moses.
Therefore to change, alter, or abolish them meant to change, alter, or abolish the law itself, the very foundation of the theocracy. In the opinion of the false witnesses and all the Jews, this was manifest blasphemy.
The formal false witnesses before the Sanhedrin said something different from those who spread rumors about Archdeacon Stephen among the mass of the people.
There it was said briefly that he was a blasphemer and spoke against Moses. Here it is stated more precisely what the false witnesses supposedly heard.
They claimed that he blasphemed not God, but “this holy place,” that is, the temple, in one of whose sections the sessions of the Sanhedrin were held, and the law.
They said he pointed to its replacement by the teaching of Jesus Christ, who would destroy even the place of the sanctuary.
As we have already said, slander is powerful precisely because particles of truth are woven into it. So it was here.
Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the destruction of the temple, His Body (see Mt 26:61; Jn 2:19). But He was accused of wanting to destroy the temple of Jerusalem.
Archdeacon Stephen too could have spoken about the abolition of the Mosaic law and the desolation of the place of the temple.
Jesus Christ had said of that temple that not one stone would be left upon another. But Jesus Christ spoke of this with sorrow (see Mt 24:1-2).
Archdeacon Stephen likewise could have spoken of it with sorrow, and certainly not with blasphemy. Thus the factual content of the speeches was trustworthy, but the false testimony concerning blasphemy was beyond doubt.
According to the explanation of blessed Theophylact, the enemies did not want simply to kill Stephen, but to do so by sentence.
They reckoned that by this they would undermine the good opinion held of those whom they killed. Therefore false witness was used.
“See,” says St. John Chrysostom, “what the false witnesses say, set up by those who wickedly dragged him into the tribunal.
‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.’ Shameless men! You yourselves commit blasphemous deeds against God and do not think of it.
Yet you pretend to be zealous for Moses. Moses is placed first because they cared little for the things of God.
They mention Moses above and below (see Acts 7:40), wishing thereby to stir up the fickleness of the people.”
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 21 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS