John Calvin Commentary Acts 7:1

"And the high priest said, Are these things so?" — Acts 7:1 (ASV)

There still appears some semblance of fairness in the high priest and in the council; yet, there is a most unjust prejudice in his words. For he does not ask him what reason he had to teach this way, nor does he allow him to defend what is right (which was, however, the main point); instead, he demanded precisely whether Stephen uttered these words, whatever they were. Just as the Papists today will not ask what the doctrine is, or whether it can be proven from the Scriptures, but inquire whether anyone dared to mutter against their superstitions, so that as soon as he is convicted, they may immediately burn him.

Furthermore, Stephen’s answer may seem absurd and foolish at first glance. He begins at the very beginning; afterwards, he provides a long narration in which, so to speak, there is almost no mention of the matter at hand. And there can be no greater fault than to speak many words that are not relevant to the matter. But whoever thoroughly considers this long speech will find nothing in it that is superfluous, and will clearly perceive that Stephen speaks very much to the point, as the matter requires.

He was accused as an apostate (or rebel) who attempted the overthrow of religion and the worship of God. Therefore, he diligently drives home the point that he retains the God whom the fathers have always worshipped, thereby refuting the charge of wicked backsliding.

He further declares that his enemies were spurred on by what they presented as nothing less than zeal for the law, for they put on a show of being wholly determined to increase the glory of God. Therefore, he strips them of this false boasting.

And because they always had the fathers on their lips, and because they were puffed up with the glory of their nation, Stephen also declares that they have no reason to be proud of this. Instead, he points out that the corruptions of the fathers were so great and so numerous that they ought to be ashamed and humbled.

Regarding the main point of the case, because the question concerned the temple and the ceremonies, he plainly affirms that their fathers were chosen by God to be a special people before there was any temple and before Moses was born; and to this end tends that exordium or beginning, which is drawn from so far back. Secondly, he tells them that all external rites which God gave through Moses were fashioned according to the heavenly pattern.

From this it follows that the ceremonial law points to another purpose, and that those who omit the truth and focus only on the signs act foolishly and improperly.

If readers refer Stephen's entire speech to these points, they will find that everything in it agrees very well with the case, as I will briefly declare again at the end. Nevertheless, this overview of the entire speech will not prevent us from briefly discussing all things worthy of note.