n. You will recall the high priest is the chairman of this council. He was of the sect of the Sadducees and the Sadducees had brought the charges before. This time the charges are brought by the Pharisees. Now, I would assume, when the council had assembled and Stephen was standing before the court, the high priest either asked or motioned for the charges to be read or stated. The quotation in v. 13-14 is a formal statement of the charges. The false witnesses that had been groomed for this job stood and read the charges:
This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous works 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.
As you try to analyze this, notice the basic charge consists of the quotation in v. 13. Verse 14 is an elaboration upon this charge. A paraphrase of the basic charge would be: "Stephen continually curses the temple and the law." Notice this does not include the statement that was used to stir up the people, i.e. that he cursed God. That statement was used to stir up the elders and the scribes, also. You see the elders and scribes sat on this council, so they had heard the charges that be blasphemed God, although it was not formally stated here. Whether the statement as it stands in v. 13 would have been sufficient to justify the death penalty, had it been proven true, according to the Law of Moses, is a good question; that I am not lawyer enough to answer. I get the impression from reading this, they though so anyhow.
Now, the elaboration in v. 14: the witnesses claimed they had heard Stephen say two things. First that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple. I would assume, the words, "this place" referred to the temple and not Jerusalem, although the antecedent is not absolutely clear. Second, they claimed Stephen had said that Jesus of Nazareth would change the customs which Moses delivered. With reference to the first, destroying the temple, you may remember, this same charge was brought against Jesus and then by false witnesses, when Jesus was standing right where Stephen is now standing, according to Matthew 26:60. It would seem, according to the position of the Pharisees, if Jesus was NOT the Messiah such a charge would have been humorous; to be consistent with their view. This may tell us something about their subconscious convictions. There is both misunderstandings and distortion in the charge. I assume the seeds of this misunderstanding came about like this. After Jesus drove the money changers and the merchandisers out of the temple, in John Chapter 2, the Jews wanted a SIGN from him; i.e. to prove he was the Messiah. Jesus told them this;
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21).
This ware really a prophecy with reference to Jesus' death and resurrection, a sign, that is what they asked for. Notice, the distortion: Jesus told them THEY would do the destroying. He would do the raising up. The charge, against Stephen is;
We have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place.
If the charge included Jerusalem, as well as the temple, then the seeds of the misunderstanding could have come from the prophecy which Jesus made about Jerusalem as he stood on the mount of Olives with the multitude in what is sometimes referred to as the triumphal entry, when he rode the colt into the city. As the stood there on Mt. Olivet and looked across the valley toward Jerusalem, Jesus said sorrowfully, with reference to Jerusalem:
For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee around, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another. (Luke 19:43-44)
This prophecy foretold the war of AD 70, in which about 40 years later the Romans d