Acts 7

Acts 7:1–10 KJV 1900

Then said the high priest, Are these things so? And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him, And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

We open chapter 7 with what we could call Stephen’s Address.

This chapter records the longest single speech in the Book of Acts as well as the turning point in Israel’s spiritual history. Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 292.

His address is long and very well thought out. He covers the entire history of Israel from the time of Abraham up until the time of Christ in a large arc of events that would be important for his Jewish audience.

Would the Sanhedrin have known about all the history that Stephen is addressing?

Yes.

We are going to go over Stephen’s outline to guide us through his sermon. We will move quickly today as he covers a lot but we do not need to dwell on all of it.

Notice the way in which Stephen starts his address: The God of Glory.

Stephen begins recounting Israel’s history in a way similar to the Old Testament prophets, reminding the Israelites of the nature of their covenant responsibilities to Yahweh.

What was Israel’s responsibility in the covenant?

To be faithful to God.

It was their failure to be faithful that

God’s Covenant with Abraham

Acts 7:1–8 KJV 1900

Then said the high priest, Are these things so? And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

The covenant with Abraham is recorded in Genesis 13:14–18, as well as in Genesis 15 and 17. It included the ownership by Abraham’s seed of the land of promise, and the promise of a multiplied seed in the years to come. The seal of this covenant was circumcision. This covenant with Abraham was the foundation of the Jewish nation. God did not make this covenant with the Gentiles, nor does it apply to the church. To “spiritualize” these promises and apply them to the church is to misunderstand and twist Scripture. God promised the Jews a land and a kingdom; because of their disobedience, they lost possession of the land and failed to receive their kingdom. This covenant with Abraham still stands, however, and will be fulfilled when Christ returns to set up His kingdom on earth. Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 292–293.

Why would Stephen want to mention Abraham?

The covenant that God made with Abraham formed the theological foundation of the Jewish identity. Abraham is considered the father of the faith.

Was Abraham the one who would inherit the promised land?

No.

Who would be given the promised land?

Abraham’s decedents.

What is the strange land being referenced?

Egypt.

This would be foreshadowing of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt before the Exodus.

The biblical account presents Israel’s time in Egypt as spanning four hundred years, though the precise nature of this period requires clarification. Israel lived in Egypt as a nation of slaves for four hundred years.[1] However, scholarly analysis reveals important nuance: the four-hundred-year figure represents the duration of the entire Egyptian sojourn rather than the oppression alone, with Israel’s enslavement occurring only after their population grew significantly.[2]

The calculation of this timeframe operates differently than a straightforward count. The four hundred years must be reckoned not from when Israel entered Egypt—a span of only two hundred and ten years—but from Isaac’s birth, calculated as sixty years until Jacob’s birth, plus one hundred and thirty years until Jacob entered Egypt, plus the two hundred and ten years of Egyptian residence.[3] This demonstrates that the four-hundred-year period encompasses the patriarchal era and extends beyond Egypt itself.

Regarding historical accuracy, scholars debate the reliability of these chronologies. Some propose the actual Egyptian residence lasted approximately one century based on four generations, though accepting biblical genealogies while rejecting their reported lifespans proves inconsistent; the tradition of four generations spanning four hundred years maintains internal consistency even if historically questionable.[2]

The theological significance outweighs historical precision in the biblical narrative. The four hundred years serve primarily as a period of incubation for Israel, with the momentous events—Jacob’s descent and the Exodus—receiving full description.[2] This framework emphasizes divine providence across generations rather than providing a precise historical timeline.

[1] Bill Johnson, God Is Good: He’s Better than You Think (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2016). [See here.] [2] William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 2:135–136. [3] John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 2:194–195.

Israel’s Rejection of Joseph

Acts 7:9-16

What similarities does Jesus share with Joseph?

He was beloved of His Father

He was hated by his brethren

He was envied by His brethren

He was sold for the price of a slave

He was humbled as a servant

He was falsely accused

He was exalted to honor

Joseph bears a wonderful resemblance to Christ in many ways: (1) he was beloved of his father (Gen. 37:3; Matt. 3:17); (2) he was hated by his brethren (Gen. 37:4–8; John 15:25); (3) he was envied by his brethren (Gen. 37:11; Mark 15:10); (4) he was sold for the price of a slave (Gen. 37:28; Matt. 26:15); (5) he was humbled as a servant (Gen. 39:1ff; Phil. 2:5ff); (6) he was falsely accused (Gen. 39:16–18; Matt. 26:59–60); (7) he was exalted to honor (Gen. 41:14ff; Phil. 2:9–10); (8) he was not recognized by his brethren the first time (Gen. 42:8; Acts 3:17); (9) he revealed himself to them the second time (Gen. 45:1ff; Acts 7:13; Zech. 12:10); (10) while rejected by his brethren, he took a Gentile bride (Gen. 41:45; Acts 15:6–18). Stephen’s argument here is that the Jews had treated Christ the way the patriarchs treated Joseph, but he did not bring this accusation out until the end. Just as Joseph suffered to save his people, so Christ suffered to save Israel and all humankind; yet the Jews did not receive Him. Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 293.

Israel’s Rejection of Moses

Acts 7:17-41

This is Stephen’s longest segment of his address.

It is no surprise that this would be his longest segment given that the life of Moses and his influence to deliver God’s people makes up the Torah. It is also a good stepping stone for his final segments.

Like Joseph, Moses shares many similarities to Christ.

What are some of the similarities that Moses has in common with Jesus?

He was persecuted and almost slain when he was a child

He refused the world that he might save his people

He was rejected the first time he tried to help Israel

He became a shepherd

He took a Gentile bride during his rejection.

Like Joseph, Moses was strikingly similar to Christ: (1) he was persecuted and almost slain when a child (Ex. 1:22 and 4:19; Matt. 2:13–20); (2) he refused the world that he might save his people (Heb. 11:24–26; Matt. 4:8–10; 2 Cor. 8:9); (3) he was rejected the first time he tried to help Israel (Ex. 2:11–14; Isa. 53:3); (4) he became a shepherd (Ex. 3:1; John. 10); (5) he took a Gentile bride during his rejection (Ex. 2:21); (6) he was received by his brethren the second time (Ex. 4:29–31; Acts 7:5); (7) he delivered the people from bondage through the blood of the lamb (Ex. 12; 1 Peter 2:24). Moses was a prophet (Deut. 18:15–19; Acts 3:22), a priest (Ps. 99:6), and a king (Deut. 33:4–5). A comment may be needed on v. 38, where Israel is called “the church in the wilderness.” This word ekklesia means “a called-out assembly” and does not suggest that Israel was the “church” in the OT. We do not find prophecies about the church in the OT. Israel (an earthly people) was not in the same relationship to God in the OT as believers (a heavenly people) were in the NT. Though Israel had a godly leader and God Himself in their presence (v. 38), they still rebelled and rejected God’s will! “In their hearts they turned back again to Egypt!” (v. 39) They turned to idolatry, and God gave them up. Had they not done the same thing while Christ was with them on earth? Moses performed miracles, met their needs in the wilderness, and gave them the Word of God; Christ also had performed mighty works, fed the people, and had given them God’s Word—yet they turned away! Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 293–294.

Israel’s Rejection of the Prophets

Acts 7:42-50

Acts 7:42 KJV 1900

Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

This is a reference to the twelve minor prophets (Hosea to Malachi) being transmitted on one scroll, as seen among the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 250 bc–ad 50). In its original context, Stephen’s quote from Amos 5:25–27 falls in the midst of a legal argument God has brought against His people for their unfaithfulness to the covenant. Stephen implies that he has a similar case against the religious leaders. They have disobeyed the covenant and followed their ancestors’ rebellious ways. John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Ac 7:42.

Acts 7:43 KJV 1900

Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

Who was Moloch?

He was the God of the Ammonites, Canaanites, and Israel throughout their history.

A deity whose worship likely originated in Canaan and involved child sacrifice (Lev 18:21; 20:2–5) John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Ac 7:43.

Moloch was an idol-god worshipped by the Ammonites, associated with human sacrifice[1]. The name means “king,” and the deity was the national god of the Ammonites, to whom children were sacrificed by fire[2]. In religious practice, Moloch represented both destructive and purifying fire[2].

The worship of Moloch appears throughout Israel’s history—Solomon constructed a shrine for the idol on the Mount of Olives, and the practice persisted until the reign of Josiah, with partial restoration during the time of Jehoahaz before disappearing entirely after the Babylonian captivity[2]. The apostle Stephen condemned the Israelites for carrying the tabernacle of Moloch and worshipping him[1], as recorded in Acts 7:43.

The deity appears under multiple names in biblical texts—Molech, Milcom, and Malcham[2]. Moloch functioned as a solar deity in Ammonite religion, comparable to the planet Saturn and representing the sun-god in its aspect as a god of time[3].

Beyond its religious significance, the name moloch also refers to a spiny Australian desert lizard that feeds on ants[4], sometimes called the mountain devil—a modern usage that derives from the ancient deity’s fearsome reputation.

[1] E. Richard Pigeon and Gretchen S. Lebrun, “Moloch,” in AMG’s Comprehensive Dictionary of New Testament Words, ed. Baker Warren et al. (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2014), 681. [2] M. G. Easton, in Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893), 473. [3] James Orr, John L. Nuelsen, et al., eds., “Moloch,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2075. [4] COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY. [See here.]

Sometimes called Molech, and sometimes Milcom; it was the god of the Ammonites, and the same with Baal: the one signifies king, and the other lord; and was, no doubt, the same with the Apis or Serapis of the Egyptians, and the calf of the Israelites. Frequent mention is made of giving seed to Molech, and causing the children to pass through fire to him. The account the Jews give of this image, and of the barbarous worship of it, is this: “though all idolatrous places were in Jerusalem, Molech was without Jerusalem; and it was made an hollow image, placed within seven chancels or chapels; and whoever offered fine flour, they opened to him the first; if turtle doves or two young pigeons, they opened the second; if a lamb, they opened the third; if a ram, they opened the fourth; if a calf, they opened the fifth; if an ox, they opened the sixth; but whoever offered his son, they opened the seventh: his face was a calf’s, and his hands were stretched out, as a man opens his hands to receive any thing from his friend; and they make him hot with fire, and the priests take the infant and put it into the hands of Molech, and the infant expires: and wherefore is it called Tophet and Hinnom? Tophet, because they make a noise with drums, that its father may not hear the voice of the child, and have compassion on it, and return to it; and Hinnom, because the child roars, and the voice of its roaring ascends.” Others give a milder account of this matter, and say, that the service was after this manner; that “the father delivered his son to the priests, who made two large fires, and caused the son to pass on his feet between the two fires,” so that it was only a sort of a lustration or purification by fire; but the former account, which makes the child to be sacrificed, and put to death, seems best to agree with the scriptural one. Now this idol was included in chancels or chapels, as in the account given, or in shrines, in tabernacles, or portable temples, which might be taken up and carried; and such an one is here mentioned: by which is meant, not the tabernacle of the Lord made by Bezeleel; as if the sense was, that the idolatrous Israelites, though not openly, yet secretly, and in their hearts worshipped Moloch, as if he was included in the tabernacle; so that to take it up means no other, than in the heart to worship, and to consider him as if he had been shut up and carried in that tabernacle; nor is it to be thought that they publicly took up, and carried a tabernacle, in which was the image of Moloch, during their forty years’ travels in the wilderness; for whatever they might do the few days they worshipped the golden calf, which is possible, it cannot be received, that Moses, who was so severe against idolatry, would ever have connived at such a practice: this therefore must have reference to after-times, when they sacrificed their children to him, and took up and carried his image in little shrines and tabernacles. John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 205–206.

How did Israel treat the prophets?

They rejected them.

In these verses Stephen refers to Amos 5:25–27 and Isa. 66:1–2. The Jews thought that because they had their temple, they were safe from harm, and God had to bless them. The prophets all warned them that the temple would not assure them of blessing if their hearts were not right. How can God, who fills all heaven and earth, be confined to a temple made with hands? Israel’s religious life was a formality; they had the outward forms of religion but their hearts were not right with God. They rejected the voice of the prophets, even persecuting and killing them (see Matt. 23:29–39); and when The Prophet (Christ) appeared (v. 37), they rejected His Words and crucified Him! Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992), 294.

Many prophets were slain by Israel because they refused to hear the truth.

Israel’s Judgment

Acts 7:51-60

Verse 51 is a hard and strong verse, Stephen being full of the Holy Spirit gives them harsh words of judgment.

What two murders have we witnessed so far in the New Testament?

John the Baptist

Jesus Christ

What does it mean ‘they were cut to the heart’?

Intense conviction.

This is a very interesting Greek word

It is the Greek word διαπρίω (diapriō) an intense word conveying the sense of being ‘sawed in two mentally’ or ‘ripped apart with vexation’. the phrase captures violent emotional upheaval—the imperfect tense suggests they were continuously torn emotionally and enraged.

When Stephen’s accusers heard his testimony in Acts 7:54, they experienced a profound emotional and spiritual wound. The Greek term underlying “cut to the heart” derives from diaprio, an intense word conveying the sense of being “sawed in two mentally” or “ripped apart with vexation.”[1] Rather than a gentle conviction, the phrase captures violent emotional upheaval—the imperfect tense suggests they were continuously torn emotionally and enraged.[1]

The visceral nature of this response becomes clearer through the physical reaction that followed. Stephen’s words had penetrated the hearts of the Pharisees “like a saw through” them, rasping them “to the bone.”[2] Their gnashing of teeth—an imperfect form indicating they “began to gnash their teeth at him”—resembled the behavior of “hungry, snarling wolves.”[2]

The deeper significance lies in what provoked this reaction. As Stephen expounded the Old Testament Scriptures under the Holy Spirit’s anointing, he reversed the trial’s roles, transforming himself into the accuser while the council members became the accused.[3] Stephen’s words stripped away their false spirituality and exposed their hypocrisy.[1] This convicting effect on the Sanhedrin is attributed to the Holy Spirit’s work.[4] Rather than softening hearts toward repentance, however, the exposure of their spiritual condition hardened them into rage—a tragic illustration of how God’s truth can wound without converting when hearts remain resistant.

[1] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Acts, Treasures from the Scriptures (n.p., 2019), 1:273. [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933). [See here, here.] [3] Derek Prince, Foundational Truths For Christian Living: Everything You Need to Know to Live a Balanced, Spirit-Filled Life (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2025), 314. [4] Thoralf Gilbrant, “Διαπρίω,” in The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary (WORDsearch, 1991). [See here.]

Who does Stephen say they resist?

The Holy Ghost

See they rejected the forerunner of the Messiah (John the Baptist), they rejected the Messiah, Now they reject the Holy Spirit.

How does the crowd react to Stephen’s message?

They chew on him.

I’m joking, the word here for gnash means to grind their teeth at him. A visible sign that they were furious and could not refute him or contain their anger.

No—gnashing means something quite different. Gnashing of teeth refers to grating or grinding one’s teeth together[1], not chewing. The action involves striking the teeth together in rage, pain, or misery of disappointment[2].

The distinction matters because gnashing expresses an emotional or physical state rather than a functional act. When Stephen’s accusers gnashed their teeth at him, they were grinding their teeth together as a visible manifestation of their fury—a physical expression of rage that accompanied their inability to refute his words. It’s an involuntary or semi-voluntary gesture of extreme anger, not a deliberate chewing motion.

In the Old Testament, the phrase frequently appears as an expression of anger[1], and the Hebrew term represents rage, anger, and hatred[2]. The same physical response also carries eschatological weight: in Jesus’s teaching, gnashing of teeth becomes associated with future punishment, especially in Matthew’s Gospel[1]. In those contexts, the gnashing may express the futility of the wicked before God’s judgment or demonstrate their continuing refusal to repent[3]—a grinding of teeth born from despair and defiance rather than from any practical purpose.

[1] Tremper Longman III, Peter Enns, and Mark Strauss, eds., in The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 673–674. [2] W. L. Walker, “Gnash,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr et al. (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 1239. [3] Chad Brand et al., eds., “Gnashing of Teeth,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 656.

How does Stephen respond to their rage while being stoned to death?

He responds like Jesus.

He prays that God would not lay this sin to their charge.

This will mark the final rejection of the message of salvation for Israel, in that the shift of the book of Acts and those sent will be focused to the Gentiles and no longer centered on reaching Israel in Jerusalem.

It does not mean they never attempt, but the focus changes to the Gentiles.