Most scholarship, I believe, puts the stoning of Stephen in 34 or 35 AD. Is there reason within the Scriptures to substantiate this claim? Yes, I believe there is! However, such substantiation comes from prophecy in both Old and New Testaments, but the understanding of these very prophecies is clouded by the interpretation of most scholarship, which puts the fulfillment of them at the second coming of Jesus.
I have written similar posts which had to do with Stephen’s death back in November of 2009. However, I think I should be clearer on this matter in order to have a better understanding of the timeline of early Acts with a particular interest in the placement of the High Priests for Stephen’s death, Paul’s persecution of the Jewish believers in Jesus in Acts 9:1, and when the “peace” occurred in Acts 9:31.
The Seventy Weeks Prophecy of Daniel 9 was supposed to offer the believer the identity of the Messiah by showing the exact time in which he would appear. The 70 Weeks Prophecy begins with the first sacrifice offered on the rebuilt altar on the Temple mount when Joshua, the High Priest, and Zerubbabel returned from the captivity. The Jews began to make daily offerings to God from the first day of the seventh month upon their return from captivity (Ezra 3:6). This is a very important date, as it represents the first time in decades that worship of the God of Israel was offered from the Temple mount, and it represents the “firstfruits” of the decree of the emperor, which I believe is implied in the prophecy. So, the date of the decree itself is not important, but date of the firstfruits of that decree is the important part of the prophecy in terms of when it begins. The Messiah was to come at the beginning of the 70th week or 483 years after the first sacrifice was offered by the returning captives.
No matter which year one chooses to begin the 70 Weeks Prophecy, the 484th year must begin in the fall and on the Feast of Trumpets. I submit that from Luke 4:16 and up to Luke 6:49 Luke shows Jesus beginning his ministry on the Feast of Trumpets (Luke 4:16) and each Sabbath mentioned thereafter is either an annual Holy Day or a seventh day Sabbath. The odd “second Sabbath after the first” in Luke 6:1 is the seventh day Sabbath which occurred in that year back to back with the annual Day of Atonement, a fast day, which is why the Apostles were hungry and began to take some grain from the fields on the Sabbath day, rubbing it in their hands and eating the kernels.
Anyway, long-story-short, 3 ½ years later Jesus was crucified, and the 70 Weeks prophecy foretold the Messiah would be ‘cut’ (offered for the covenant) in the midst or the middle of the prophetic week (Daniel 9:26-27). The 70th week comprises 7 years, 3 ½ of which represented Jesus public ministry culminating in his crucifixion and resurrection. Notice in Luke 10:18 that Jesus said he beheld Satan like lightning fall from heaven. This is shown in Revelation 12:7-10 where Michael/Jesus makes war with Satan. Now I am not saying Jesus is an angelic being, but I am saying Michel is Jesus—the Angel of the LORD who is God in the Old Testament. Anyway, Jesus with his disciples were waging spiritual warfare against Satan’s kingdom (cf. Luke 10:17). The angels in Revelation 12 represent the messengers of Jesus and Satan respectively. In the Gospels they are Jesus’ disciples waging war against Satan or the Pharisees and high priests who fought against Jesus and his disciples. The woman (the Jewish believers) had a place of safety for 1260 days (Revelation 12:6). This is the first part of the 70th prophetic week and represents Jesus care for his disciples—they were safe, and he lost no one.
In the second part of the week the disciples were also safe according to Revelation 12:14. The believers were spiritually nourished for a time (1) + times (2) and half a time (1/2) or 3 ½ years. Daniel refers to this time as the 1290 days.
Formerly, I had believed the 1290 days began on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, which if it did, the days would have culminated on the Day of Atonement in 34 AD. However, had they done this, it would have indicated national repentance, which didn’t occur, and the proof of this is Stephen’s death, which occurred on that day. Thus, the 1260 days ended in blood (the crucifixion), but the 1290 days were intended to end in repentance, but instead Stephen was stoned. Therefore the fulfillment of the 1290 days were delayed. There is a gap between the 1260 days and the 1290 days of nearly 40 years due to unbelief, and is typified by Israel’s wandering in the wilderness for 40 year due to their unbelief. The 1290 days begin when the Roman general, Cestius, surrounded Jerusalem with his armies (cf. Luke 21:20), tore down the northern wall of Jerusalem, but for no good reason retreated, allowing Jesus’ disciples to flee (Luke 21:21). They end, when Titus, the Roman general and son of the Emperor, surrounded Jerusalem with his armies, broke down the northern wall (that was repaired) and encamped inside the walls of Jerusalem. Thus the city fell.[1]
____________________________________
[1] See my study, The Seventy Weeks Prophecy and the 1290 Days, which details this.
Smoodock's Blog 
105 responses to “When Was Stephen Stoned?”
Heretical and blasphemy is an opinion, and it is an opinion I don’t share, obviously.
Concerning Daniel 10:13, the actual wording is ‘one of the chief princes.’ How I see this is Michael is one of the Princes at the beginning (chief means: first, beginning, first in place time and rank). I believe Daniel refers to the Godhead in Daniel 4:17 calling God “the Watchers”. I think it was John Gill’s commentary that pointed this out to me at first. I thought about it quite awhile before I agreed. I think Daniel may have had an illumination concerning the Godhead and had trouble expressing it. I am not troubled with the wording of Daniel 10:13.
Concerning God not being able to look upon sin, I believe that is an error that has done much damage to Christianity’s understanding of the Gospel. The Scripture is: Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity… (Habakkuk 1:13 KJV), but the KJV’s English doesn’t convey the sense properly. Notice the same Scripture from a different translation: You are too just to tolerate evil; you are unable to condone wrongdoing… (Habakkuk 1:13 NET.) This and other translations, in my opinion, give the proper sense.
Concerning “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, do you really believe the Father forsook his Son? Do you really believe Jesus ‘thought’ he was forsaken by his Father? The teaching that either of these propositions is true is baloney. Sorry, but there simply isn’t a kinder manner to express it. It is **impossible** for God to deny himself (2Timothy 2:13), and when Jesus was hanging on the cross, the Father was **IN** him reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing our trespasses (2Corinthians 5:19). What was Jesus thinking when he uttered these words? They are the opening lines of Psalm 22. when a Rabbi uttered the opening lines of a Scripture, he expected his disciples to know the rest of the Scripture and recall his meaning. The Psalm ends in hope of a resurrection. EVERYONE at the foot of the cross, the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, soldiers and even the two robbers crucified with him were saying that God had forsaken Jesus. Jesus uttered these words at the 9th hour (Matthew 27:46)–the hour of prayer according to Acts 3:1, and when he did the darkness that had engulfed the land began to disappear–remember the darkness was from the 6th to the 9th hours (Matthew 27:45). Nevertheless, you are welcome to believe as you wish. I don’t want to appear as one undermining your faith.
May the Lord bless you, Roger, as you seek to understand his word.
Eddie, the problem is “I believe” without any scriptural validity. Michael – “one of”, how many Gods are there? Dan 4:17 states nothing about the “watchers” being Gods. John Gill is a man and knows nothing beyond what the Bible says and anything else is false.
In a nutshell: Mark7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
We **all** know nothing beyond what the Bible says. I referred to John Gill’s commentary, because you are of he opinion that I am a heretic, so I wished to point to someone who is not considered so by evangelical Christianity. I presumed you believe that God is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Am I wrong in this presumption? If not, then the term ‘Watchers’ in Daniel 4:17, is a legitimate understanding. Of course if you are a “Jesus Only” person, I can understand your being opposed to this, and I don’t wish to put down your belief about God. I try not to do such things, but sometimes I am drawn into a debate/discussion by those who want that sort of thing.
Anyway, sorry we don’t see eye to eye on these things. May God bless you in your study of His word.
God is not Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is blasphemy and absolutely denies who God is in His singleness and all powerful deity. Jesus is the Son of God; the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. Show me “trinity” in the Bible.
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
I’m already involved in a discussion concerning the Godhead. I will tell you what I have tried to tell that person. I do not discuss the Trinity for the same reason I don’t discuss John Gill, Jameson-Fausset-and Brown, Barns’ Notes or any other work of men. I will discuss the Bible with you, if you desire to enter into such a debate / discussion, and how the Scriptures speak of God. If you should so desire to enter into this discussion, I would prefer that I create a page for it to post on the top of my blog rather than here where the discussion would be lost to the reader after it is complete (unless the reader stumbles upon it by accident). Let me know if you are willing to continue, and I’ll direct you to the correct place where we can carry on our discussion. I’ll let you give it a title, provided you can do so in one or two words.