Did False Witnesses Against Stephen Lie?
By Jeff Ward
In the early days of the Jerusalem church, the Pharisees cornered a follower of Jesus named Stephen. The entirety of the story is found in Acts 6. The religious leaders “could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking”. They sought to trap him another way:
And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
If the “false” witnesses were lying, then then TRUTH would be the inverse:
- Stephen alleges Jesus had no intentions of destroying the Jerusalem temple.
- Stephen alleges Jesus had no intentions of replacing/negating the law of Moses.
Good for Stephen!
Certainly, Jesus himself is on-record in agreement with both points. He disclosed the temple destruction statement pertained in a metaphorical way to his body. (John 2:21). He made it unmistakably clear that anyone who disobeyed “the least of the commandments” was destined to be “least in the kingdom” and wiped any notion he came to replace the law of Moses. (Matthew 5:17-20). The “thousands” of believers in Jesus in Jerusalem were “zealous for the law” just like the Pharisees were. (Acts 21:20)
So, we’re all on the same page. Well, almost. Jesus agrees with these truths. The Jerusalem church agrees. Stephen agrees. Paul agrees. (Acts 22:3) Who doesn’t?
Practically ALL of Christianity, that’s who. 🙍♂️
Christianity alleges “not one stone is left upon another” at the temple mount in Jerusalem today. Why? Because Jesus tore it down. Jesus allegedly prophesied of its destruction in 70 AD according to Christianity, even though a single wailing wall around the foundation still exists.
As for the law, Christianity stiffly maintains that the law was “bondage” and “a curse” and “a shadow” and “a schoolmaster” that was “nailed to the cross”. We are told if we obey it, then “Christ died in vain.”
If Christianity is right and Stephen agrees with them, then the “false witnesses” told the truth about Stephen, not lies.
If the metaphorical example of Jesus’ body being destroyed and raised has already happened, then why is Stephen still talking about it in a way perceived to be a physical building?
Why would Pharisees object to someone who upholds keeping the commandments and not destroying the temple? They wouldn’t! So then you’re left with the question of why they were after him in the first place.
Not all combinations of these three answers make sense:
- The witnesses lied about Stephen. True? Or False?
- Stephen claimed Jesus would destroy the temple. True? Or False?
- Stephen claimed the law of Moses should be abandoned. True? Or False?
Did the “False Witnesses” lie?
The table below summarizes the problems in resolving this question. Examine one column at a time, presuming whether you think the witnesses really lied or not.
| Issue | Witnesses Lied YES | Witnesses Lied NO |
|---|---|---|
| Did Stephen actually speak of physical destruction of temple? | No, falsely accused. He considered the prophecy metaphorical about Jesus body. | Yes, just as accused, just like Christianity, fulfilled in 70 AD. |
| Did Stephen actually advocate putting aside the Law of Moses? | No, falsely accused. He upheld the Law. | Yes, just like Christianity, he saw it as “bondage”, a “curse”, a “schoolmaster” that is “against us”. |
| Stephen’s true opinion agrees with orthodox Christianity? | NO | YES |
| Stephen’s true opinion agrees with orthodox Judaism? | YES | NO |
| About temple destruction… | Why were the Pharisees upset if the whole destruction thing is metaphorical? | Why is Stephen speaking of the tearing down of the temple when prophecy says Messiah will build the temple? |
| About Law of Moses… | If Stephen, a pillar of the faith upheld the law, then why does Christianity chastise it? | Why doesn’t Stephen just admit that he thinks the Law of Moses is to be marginalized? |
| Bias/conflict of the writer | Why does the writer present a confrontation between two groups that agree on the stated issues? | The writer calls the two witnesses “false” when they really told the truth. Why does he bear false witness of the witnesses? |
I challenge you to work out the problems in this text fully to anyone’s satisfaction.