rge 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 did destroy Jerusalem and the temple. The temple was never rebuilt to this day. This prophecy is given in much greater detail in Matthew Chapter 24. But, did you notice in this prophecy Jesus said:
thine enemies shall
be the destroyer. So, the charge before the council is distorted. No doubt, Stephen may have quoted one of these prophecies of Jesus, if not both, when disputing in the synagogue. The second part of the elaboration in v. 14, that Jesus,
shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
again is a distortion. The word 'custom' here is used to mean the Law of Moses. It could not mean oral tradition as it sometimes does, because Moses did not deliver that. It had been developed since the time of Moses. The distortion is, Jesus did not say he would change or destroy the law. He said he came to fulfill the law. (Matthew 5:17) I hope you understand the difference. The Law of Moses, the 10 Commandments, as we sometimes call it, was an agreement or covenant or testament or contract imposed upon the Jews by God. It was NOT a treaty, in the sense that the Jews negotiated it. As I said, it was imposed by God. The only prerogative they had was they could keep it or they could break it. The law was temporary according to Galatians 3:19. When it was fulfilled, it was finished. When a contract is carried out, then it is fulfilled, NOT broken or changed. For example, if I make a contract with you, to build you a house AND I build the house, then I fulfilled my contract. If I did NOT build the house, then I would have broken or destroyed the contract. If I built a barn instead, the I would have changed the contract or altered the contract. If I built only half of the house and then did not complete it, I would NOT have fulfilled my contract. Jesus said:
one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
We would say that like this: Not one dotting of the "I" or crossing of the "T" shall be left our, the contract will be completely carried out. God imposed the Old Testament