The high priest said, “Are these things so?”
He said, “Brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get out of your land and away from your relatives, and come into a land which I will show you.’ Then he came out of the land of the Chaldaeans and lived in Haran. From there, when his father was dead, God moved him into this land, where you are now living. He gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on. He promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his offspring after him, when he still had no child. God spoke in this way: that his offspring would live as aliens in a strange land, and that they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years. ‘I will judge the nation to which they will be in bondage,’ said God, ‘and after that they will come out, and serve me in this place.’ He gave him the covenant of circumcision. So Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day. Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs.
“The patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him into Egypt. God was with him, and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt. He made him governor over Egypt and all his house. Now a famine came over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction. Our fathers found no food. But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers the first time. On the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s race was revealed to Pharaoh. Joseph sent and summoned Jacob, his father, and all his relatives, seventy-five souls. Jacob went down into Egypt and he died, himself and our fathers, and they were brought back to Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver from the children of Hamor of Shechem.
“But as the time of the promise came close which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, until there arose a different king, who didn’t know Joseph. The same took advantage of our race, and mistreated our fathers, and forced them to throw out their babies, so that they wouldn’t stay alive. At that time Moses was born, and was exceedingly handsome. He was nourished three months in his father’s house. When he was thrown out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up and reared him as her own son. Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. He was mighty in his words and works. But when he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel. Seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him who was oppressed, striking the Egyptian. He supposed that his brothers understood that God, by his hand, was giving them deliverance; but they didn’t understand.
“The day following, he appeared to them as they fought, and urged them to be at peace again, saying, ‘Sirs, you are brothers. Why do you wrong one another?’ But he who did his neighbor wrong pushed him away, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you want to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ Moses fled at this saying, and became a stranger in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.
“When forty years were fulfilled, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight. As he came close to see, a voice of the Lord came to him, ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ Moses trembled, and dared not look. The Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you stand is holy ground. I have surely seen the affliction of my people that is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning. I have come down to deliver them. Now come, I will send you into Egypt.’
“This Moses, whom they refused, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—God has sent him as both a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This man led them out, having worked wonders and signs in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel, ‘The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me.’ This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living revelations to give to us, to whom our fathers wouldn’t be obedient, but rejected him, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods that will go before us, for as for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him.’ They made a calf in those days, and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands.
But God turned, and gave them up to serve the army of the sky, as it is written in the book of the prophets, ‘Did you offer to me slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
You took up the tabernacle of Moloch, the star of your god Rephan, the figures which you made to worship. I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’
“Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as he who spoke to Moses commanded him to make it according to the pattern that he had seen; which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered into the possession of the nations, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, to the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God, and asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house.
However, the Most High doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says,
‘heaven is my throne, and the earth a footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build me?’ says the Lord. ‘Or what is the place of my rest?
Didn’t my hand make all these things?’
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets didn’t your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers. You received the law as it was ordained by angels, and didn’t keep it!”
Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears, then rushed at him with one accord. They threw him out of the city and stoned him. The witnesses placed their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. They stoned Stephen as he called out, saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 1. There appeareth as yet some color of equity…
1. There appeareth as yet some color of equity in the high priest and in the council; and yet, notwithstanding, there is a most unjust prejudice in his words; for he asketh him not what cause he had to teach thus, neither doth he admit him unto the defense of right, (which was, notwithstanding, the chief;) but he demanded precisely whether Stephen uttered these words, whatsoever they were; as the Papists at this day will not demand what doctrine it is, and whether it can be proved out of the Scriptures; but they inquire whether any man durst mutter against their superstitions, that so soon as he is convict, they may forthwith burn him. Furthermore, Stephen’s answer may seem at the first blush absurd and foolish. He beginneth first at the very first beginning; afterwards he maketh a long narration, wherein there is no mention made, in a manner, of the matter in hand; and there can be no greater fault than to utter many words which are nothing appertinent unto the matter; but whosoever shall thoroughly consider this long speech, he shall find nothing therein which is superfluous; and shall full well perceive that Stephen speaketh very ap-pertinently, as the matter requireth. He was accused as an apostate (or revolt,) which did attempt the overthrow of religion and the worship of God; therefore, he beateth in this diligently, that he retaineth that God which the fathers have always worshipped, so that he turneth away the crime of wicked backsliding; and declareth that his enemies were pricked forward with nothing less than with the zeal of the law, for they bear a show that they were wholly determined to increase the glory of God; therefore, he wringeth from them this false boasting, and because they had the fathers always in their mouths, because they were puffed up with the glory of their nation, Stephen declareth also that they have no cause to be proud of this, but rather that the corruptions of the fathers were so great and so many, that they ought to be ashamed and humbled.
As concerning the principal state of the cause, because the question was concerning the temple and the ceremonies, he affirmeth plainly that their fathers were elected of God to be a peculiar people before there was any temple, and before Moses was born; and to this end tendeth that exordium or beginning which is so far fet, (fetched.) Secondly, he telleth them that all external rites which God gave by the hand of Moses were fashioned according to the heavenly pattern.
Read full note →
Whereupon it followeth, that the ceremonial law is referred unto another end, and that those deal foolishly and disorderly who omit the truth, and stay only in the signs. If the readers shall refer the whole oration of Stephen unto these points, they shall find nothing therein which agreeth not very well with the cause, as I shall declare again briefly in the end; nevertheless, that scope of the whole oration shall not hinder but that we may discuss all things briefly which are worth the noting.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 30, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58 Stephen is admitted to plead his cause, but to…
Stephen is admitted to plead his cause, but to this end and purpose, that under a cloak, and color of Law, he might be condemned.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 1 Then said the high priest, Are these things…
1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
Ver. 1. Are these things so?] A Fire hearing Stephen should have, but his death was beforehand resolved on.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1–59 Then said the high priest; who was resolved to…
Then said the high priest; who was resolved to condemn any, right or wrong, that should profess Christ, as appears Joh 9:22.
Are these things so? That he might seem just, he gives him a kind of liberty to answer for himself; not to defend his doctrine, but; to know out of his own mouth whether he preached it, or not.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 9, 20, 30, 51, 54, 59 This chapter contains St. Stephen’s apology, or defensative plea…
This chapter contains St. Stephen’s apology, or defensative plea which he makes for himself: The Jews had in the foregoing chapter accused him for blaspheming their law, and profaning their temple, imagining that Almighty God was so pleased with the temple-service and Mosaic rites, that no other way of worship could be acceptable to him.
Therefore by an historical deduction, he shows them that God was worshipped aright before either tabernacle or temple was built, or any of the Mosaic rites instituted or ordained, and consequently that the true worship of God was not necessarily and inseparably annexed to any of these things.
Read full note →
For the proof of this, he begins at Abraham, and shew them, that he living of old at Ur of the Chaldeans, in the midst of idolators, God was pleased of his free mercy to call him, to enlighten, and draw him to own and worship the true God, and commanding him to leave his native country, and go into a land which he should shew him; He promised to make of him a great nation, and that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. Now the design and drift of Stephen in this relation, is to prove, that Abraham, from his first call in Chaldea, when he was seventy years old, to the time of his being ninety years old, had served God faithfully all that time, without either circumcision or ceremony, without tabernacle or temple; and consequently, that the true worship of God might be now performed acceptably after these ceremonies were abolished, as well as it was performed before they were instituted.
Learn hence, 1. That religious worship is manifestly due to God by the law and light of nature.
2. That the manner how that worship should be acceptably performed, was not known by the law of nature, but discovered by divine revelation. Adam in innocence knew God was to be worshipped; yet he did not know by what outward acts he was to testify that homage, till God the Sovereign Governor and Supreme Lawgiver did give direction.
3. That the worship due from the creature to God the Creator, is a spiritual worship and ought to be spiritually performed.
4. The Judaical worship, though appointed by God himself, was fleshly and carnal, and never pleased God for its own sake.
5. The evangelical worship being spiritual, and most suitable to the nature of God, is therefore most acceptable and best pleasing to him. The ceremonial worship was therefore good, because God commanded it; but the evangelical worship is therefore commanded, because good.
The legal worship is called flesh in scripture, and a carnal ordinance, in opposition to the gospel, which is called spirit, and a ministration of the Spirit, because attended with a more spiritual efficacy on the hearts and lives of men.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 17, 30, 42, 51, 54 Stephen is now at the bar before the great…
Stephen is now at the bar before the great council of the nation, indicted for blasphemy: what the witnesses swore against him we had an account of in the foregoing chapter, that he spoke blasphemous words against Moses and God; for he spoke against this holy place and the law. Now here,
I. The high priest calls upon him to answer for himself, Act 7:1. He was president, and, as such, the mouth of the court, and therefore he saith, "You, the prisoner at the bar, you hear what is sworn against you; what do you say to it? Are these things so? Have you ever spoken any words to this purport? If you have, will you recant them, or will you stand to them? Guilty or not guilty?" This carried a show of fairness, and yet seems to have been spoken with an air of haughtiness; and thus far he seems to have prejudged the cause, that, if it were so, that he had spoken such and such words, he shall certainly be adjudged a blasphemer, whatever he may offer in justification or explanation of them.
Read full note →
II. He begins his defence, and it is long; but it should seem by his breaking off abruptly, just when he came to the main point (Act 7:50), that it would have been much longer if his enemies would have given him leave to say all he had to say. In general we may observe,
1. That in this discourse he appears to be a man ready and mighty in the scriptures, and thereby thoroughly furnished for every good word and work. He can relate scripture stories, and such as were very pertinent to his purpose, off-hand without looking in his Bible. He was filled with the Holy Ghost, not so much to reveal to him new things, or open to him the secret counsels and decrees of God concerning the Jewish nation, with them to convict these gainsayers; no, but to bring to his remembrance the scriptures of the Old Testament, and to teach him how to make use of them for their conviction. Those that are full of the Holy Ghost will be full of the scripture, as Stephen was.
2. That he quotes the scriptures according to the Septuagint translation, by which it appears he was one of the Hellenist Jews, who used that version in their synagogues. His following this, occasions divers variations from the Hebrew original in this discourse, which the judges of the court did not correct, because they knew how he was led into them; nor is it any derogation to the authority of that Spirit by which he spoke, for the variations are not material. We have a maxim, Apices juris non sunt jura - Mere points of law are not law itself. These verses carry on this his compendium of church history to the end of the book of Genesis. Observe,
(1.) His preface: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. He gives them, though not flattering titles, yet civil and respectful ones, signifying his expectation of fair treatment with them; from men he hopes to be treated with humanity, and he hopes that brethren and fathers will use him in a fatherly brotherly way. They are ready to look upon him as an apostate from the Jewish church, and an enemy to them. But, to make way for their conviction to the contrary, he addresses himself to them as men, brethren, and fathers, resolving to look on himself as one of them, though they would not so look on him. He craves their attention: Hearken; though he was about to tell them what they already knew, yet he begs them to hearken to it, because, though they knew it all, yet they would not without a very close application of mind know how to apply it to the case before them.
(2.) His entrance upon the discourse, which (whatever it may seem to those that read it carelessly) is far from being a long ramble only to amuse the hearers, and give them a diversion by telling them an old story. No; it is all pertinent and ad rem - to the purpose, to show them that God had no this heart so much upon that holy place and the law as they had; but, as he had a church in the world many ages before that holy place was founded and the ceremonial law given, so he would have when they should both have had their period.
[1.] He begins with the call of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, by which he was set apart for God to be the trustee of the promise, and the father of the Old Testament church. This we had an account of (Gen 12:1, etc.), and it is referred to, Neh 9:7, Neh 9:8. His native country was an idolatrous country, it was Mesopotamia, (Act 7:2), the land of the Chaldeans (Act 7:4); thence God brought him at two removes, not too far at once, dealing tenderly with him; he first brought him out of the land of the Chaldeans to Charran, or Haran, a place midway between that and Canaan (Gen 11:31), and thence five years after, when his father was dead, he removed him into the land of Canaan, wherein you now dwell. It should seem, the first time that God spoke to Abraham, he appeared in some visible display of the divine presence, as the God of glory (Act 7:2), to settle a correspondence with him: and then afterwards he kept up that correspondence, and spoke to him from time to time as there was occasion, without repeating his visible appearances as the God of glory.
First, From this call of Abraham we may observe, 1. That in all our ways we must acknowledge God, and attend the directions of his providence, as of the pillar of cloud and fire. It is not said, Abraham removed, but, God removed him into this land wherein you now dwell, and he did but follow his Leader. 2. Those whom God takes into covenant with himself he distinguishes from the children of this world; they are effectually called out of the state, out of the land, of their nativity; they must sit loose to the world, and live above it and every thing in it, even that in it which is most dear to them, and must trust God to make it up to them in another and better country, that is, the heavenly, which he will show them. God's chosen must follow him with an implicit faith and obedience.
Secondly, But let us see what this is to Stephen's case. 1. They had charged him as a blasphemer of God, and an apostate from the church; therefore he shows that he is a son of Abraham, and values himself upon his being able to say, Our father Abraham, and that he is a faithful worshipper of the God of Abraham, whom therefore he here calls the God of glory. He also shows that he owns divine revelation, and that particularly by which the Jewish church was founded and incorporated. 2. They were proud of their being circumcised; and therefore he shows that Abraham was taken under God's guidance, and into communion with him, before he was circumcised, for that was not till Act 7:8. With this argument Paul proves that Abraham was justified by faith, because he was justified when he was in uncircumcision: and so here. 3. They had a mighty jealousy for this holy place, which may be meant of the whole land of Canaan; for it was called the holy land, Immanuel's land; and the destruction of the holy house inferred that of the holy land. "Now," says Stephen, "you need not be so proud of it; for," (1.) "You came originally out of Ur of the Chaldees, where your fathers served other gods (Jos 24:2), and you were not the first planters of this country. Look therefore unto the rock whence you were hewn, and the holy of the pit out of which you were digged;" that is, as it follows there, "look unto Abraham your father, for I called him alone (Isa 51:1, Isa 51:2) - think of the meanness of your beginnings, and how you are entirely indebted to divine grace, and then you will see boasting to be for ever excluded. It was God that raised up the righteous man from the east, and called him to his foot. Isa 41:2. But, if his seed degenerate, let them know that God can destroy this holy place, and raise up to himself another people, for he is not a debtor to them." (2.) "God appeared in his glory to Abraham a great way off in Mesopotamia, before he came near Canaan, nay, before he dwelt in Charran; so that you must not think God's visits are confined to this land; no; he that brought the seed of the church from a country so far east can, if he pleases, carry the fruit of it to another country as far west." (3.) "God made no haste to bring him into this land, but let him linger some years by the way, which shows that God has not his heart so much upon this land as you have yours, neither is his honour, nor the happiness of his people, bound up in it. It is therefore neither blasphemy nor treason to say, It shall be destroyed,"
[2.] The unsettled state of Abraham and his seed for many ages after he was called out of Ur of the Chaldees. God did indeed promise that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, Act 7:5. But, First, As yet he had no child, nor any by Sarah for many years after. Secondly, He himself was but a stranger and a sojourner in that land, and God gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; but there he was as in a strange country, where he was always upon the remove, and could call nothing his own. Thirdly, His posterity did not come to the possession of it for a long time: After four hundred years they shall come and serve me in this place, and not till then, Act 7:7. Nay, Fourthly, They must undergo a great deal of hardship and difficulty before they shall be put into the possession of that land: they shall be brought into bondage, and ill treated in a strange land: and this, not as the punishment of any particular sin, as their wandering in the wilderness was, for we never find any such account given of their bondage in Egypt; but so God had appointed, and it must be. And at the end of four hundred years, reckoning from the birth of Isaac, that nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, saith God. Now this teaches us, 1. That known unto God are all his works beforehand. When Abraham had neither inheritance nor heir, yet he was told he should have both, the one a land of promise, and the other a child of promise; and therefore both had, and received, by faith. 2. That God's promises, though they are slow, are sure in the operation of them; they will be fulfilled in the season of them, though perhaps not so soon as we expect. 3. That though the people of God may be in distress and trouble for a time, yet God will at length both rescue them and reckon with those that do oppress them; for, verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.
But let us see how this serves Stephen's purpose. 1. The Jewish nation, for the honour of which they were so jealous, was very inconsiderable in its beginnings; as their common father Abraham was fetched out of obscurity in Ur of the Chaldees, so their tribes, and the heads of them, were fetched out of servitude in Egypt, when they were the fewest of all people, Deu 7:7. And what need is there of so much ado, as if their ruin, when they bring it upon themselves by sin, must be the ruin of the world, and of all God's interests in it? No; he that brought them out of Egypt can bring them into it again, as he threatened (Deu 28:68), and yet be no loser, while he can out of stones raise up children unto Abraham. 2. The slow steps by which the promise made to Abraham advanced towards the performance, and the many seeming contradictions here taken notice of, plainly show that it had a spiritual meaning, and that the land principally intended to be conveyed and secured by it was the better country, that is, the heavenly; as the apostle shows from this very argument that the patriarchs sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, thence inferring that they looked for a city that had foundations, Heb 11:9, Heb 11:10. It was therefore no blasphemy to say, Jesus shall destroy this place, when at the same time we say, "He shall lead us to the heavenly Canaan, and put us in possession of that, of which the earthly Canaan was but a type and figure."
[3.] The building up of the family of Abraham, with the entail of divine grace upon it, and the disposals of divine Providence concerning it, which take up the rest of the book of Genesis.
First, God engaged to be a God to Abraham and his seed; and, in token of this, appointed that he and his male seed should be circumcised, Gen 17:9, Gen 17:10. He gave him the covenant of circumcision, that is, the covenant of which circumcision was the seal; and accordingly, when Abraham had a son born, he circumcised him the eighth day (Act 7:8), by which he was both bound by the divine law and interested in the divine promise; for circumcision had reference to both, being a seal of the covenant both on God's part - I will be to thee a God all-sufficient, and on man's part - Walk before me, and be thou perfect. And then when effectual care was thus taken for the securing of Abraham's seed, to be a seed to serve the Lord, they began to multiply: Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs, or roots of the respective tribes.
Secondly, Joseph, the darling and blessing of his father's house, was abused by his brethren; they envied him because of his dreams, and sold him into Egypt. Thus early did the children of Israel begin to grudge those among them that were eminent and outshone others, of which their enmity to Christ, who, like Joseph, was a Nazarite among his brethren, was a great instance.
Thirdly, God owned Joseph in his troubles, and was with him (Gen 39:2, Gen 39:21), by the influence of his Spirit, both on his mind, giving him comfort, and on the minds of those he was concerned with, giving him favour in their eyes. And thus at length he delivered him out of his afflictions, and Pharaoh made him the second man in the kingdom, Psa 105:20-22. And thus he not only arrived at great preferment among the Egyptians, but became the shepherd and stone of Israel, Gen 49:24.
Fourthly, Jacob was compelled to go down into Egypt, by a famine which forced him out of Canaan, a dearth (which was a great affliction), to that degree that our fathers found no sustenance in Canaan, Act 7:11. That fruitful land was turned into barrenness. But, hearing that there was corn in Egypt (treasured up by the wisdom of his own son), he sent out our fathers first to fetch corn, Act 7:12. And the second time that they went, Joseph, who at first made himself strange to them, made himself known to them, and it was notified to Pharaoh that they were Joseph's kindred and had a dependence upon him (Act 7:13), whereupon, with Pharaoh's leave, Joseph sent for his father Jacob to him into Egypt, with all his kindred and family, to the number of seventy-five souls, to be subsisted there, Act 7:13. In Genesis they are said to be seventy souls, Gen 46:27. But the Septuagint there makes them seventy-five, and Stephen or Luke follows that version, as Luk 3:36, where Cainan is inserted, which is not in the Hebrew text, but in the Septuagint. Some, by excluding Joseph and his sons, who were in Egypt before (which reduces the number to sixty-four), and adding the sons of the eleven patriarch, make the number seventy-five.
Fifthly, Jacob and his sons died in Egypt (Act 7:15), but were carried over to be buried in Canaan, Act 7:16. A very considerable difficulty occurs here: it is said, They were carried over into Sychem, whereas Jacob was buried not in Sychem, but near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and Isaac were buried, Gen 50:13. Joseph's bones indeed were buried in Sychem (Jos 24:32), and it seems by this (though it is not mentioned in the story) that the bones of all the other patriarchs were carried with his, each of them giving the same commandment concerning them that he had done; and of them this must be understood, not of Jacob himself. But then the sepulchre in Sychem was bought by Jacob (Gen 33:19), and by this it is described, Jos 24:32. How then is it here said to be bought by Abraham? Dr. Whitby's solution of this is very sufficient. He supplies it thus: Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers; and (our fathers) were carried over into Sychem; and he, that is, Jacob, was laid in the sepulchre that Abraham brought for a sum of money, Gen 23:16. (Or, they were laid there, that is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) And they, namely, the other patriarchs, were buried in the sepulchre bought of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.
Let us now see what this is to Stephen's purpose. 1. He still reminds them of the mean beginning of the Jewish nation, as a check to their priding themselves in the glories of that nation; and that it was by a miracle of mercy that they were raised up out of nothing to what they were, from so small a number to be so great a nation; but, if they answer not the intention of their being so raised, they can expect no other than to be destroyed. The prophets frequently put them in mind of the bringing of them out of Egypt, as a aggravation of their contempt of the law of God, and here it is urged upon them as an aggravation of their contempt of the gospel of Christ. 2. He reminds them likewise of the wickedness of those that were the patriarchs of their tribes, in envying their brother Joseph, and selling him into Egypt; and the same spirit was still working in them towards Christ and his ministers. 3. Their holy land, which they doted so much upon, their fathers were long kept out of the possession of, and met with dearth and great affliction in it; and therefore let them not think it strange if, after it has been so long polluted with sin, it be at length destroyed. 4. The faith of the patriarchs in desiring to be buried in the land of Canaan plainly showed that they had an eye to the heavenly country, to which it was the design of this Jesus to lead them.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv2–58 And he said,.... Stephen replied, in answer to the…
And he said,.... Stephen replied, in answer to the high priest's question, and addressed himself to the whole sanhedrim, saying:
men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; to the following oration and defence; he calls them men, brethren, by an usual Hebraism, that is, "brethren"; and that, because they were of the same nation; for it was common with the Jews to call those of their own country and religion, brethren; and he calls them "fathers", because of their age and dignity, being the great council of the nation, and chosen out of the senior and wiser part of the people:
Read full note →
the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham; he calls God "the God of glory", because he is glorious in himself, in all his persons, perfections, and works, and is to be glorified by his people; and his glory is to be sought by all his creatures, and to be the end of all their actions; and the rather he makes use of this epithet of him, to remove the calumny against him, that he had spoke blasphemous things against God; and because God appeared in a glorious manner to Abraham, either in a vision, or by an angel, or in some glorious form, or another; and it is observable, that when the Jews speak of Abraham's deliverance out of the fiery furnace, for so they interpret Ur of the Chaldees, they give to God much such a title; they say (r).
""the King of glory" stretched out his right hand, and delivered him out of the fiery furnace, according to Gen 15:7.''
Stephen uses a like epithet; and he calls Abraham "our father", he being a Jew, and according to the common usage of the nation: and this appearance of God to Abraham was "when he was in Mesopotamia"; a country that lay between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates, from whence it had its name; and is the same with Aram Naharaim, the Scriptures speak of; See Gill on Act 2:9. Of this appearance of God to Abraham, mentioned by Stephen, the Scriptures are silent; but the Jewish writers seem to hint at it, when they say (s),
"thus said the holy blessed God to Abraham, as thou hast enlightened for me Mesopotamia and its companions, come and give light before me in the land of Israel.''
And again, mentioning those words in Isa 41:8 "the seed of Abraham my friend, whom I have taken from the ends of the earth"; add by way of explanation, from Mesopotamia and its companions (t): and this was
before he dwelt in Charan; or Haran; see Gen 11:31 where the Septuagint call it "Charan", as here; and by Herodish (u) it is called where Antoninus was killed; and by Pliny (w), "Carra"; and by Ptolomy (x), "Carroe"; it was famous for the slaughter of M. Crassus, by the Parthians (y). R. Benjamin gives this account of it in his time (z);
"in two days I came to ancient Haran, and in it were about twenty Jews, and there was as it were a synagogue of Ezra; but in the place where was the house of Abraham our father, there was no building upon it; but the Ishmaelites (or Mahometans) honour that place, and come thither to pray.''
Stephanus (a) says it was a city of Mesopotamia, so called from "Carra", a river in Syria.
(r) Pirke Eliezer, c. 26. (s) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 30. fol. 25. 1 (t) lb. sect. 44. fol. 38. 3. (u) L. 4. sect. 24. (w) L. 5. c. 24. (x) L. 5. c. 18. (y) ----Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas. Lucan. Pharsal. l. 1. v. 105. (z) Itinerar. p. 60. (a) De Urbibus.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 And he said - St. Stephen had been accused…
And he said - St. Stephen had been accused of blasphemy against Moses, and even against God; and of speaking against the temple and the law, threatening that Jesus would destroy the one, and change the other. In answer to this accusation, rehearsing as it were the articles of his historical creed, he speaks of God with high reverence, and a grateful sense of a long series of acts of goodness to the Israelites, and of Moses with great respect, on account of his important and honourable employments under God: of the temple with regard, as being built to the honour of God; yet not with such superstition as the Jews; putting them in mind, that no temple could comprehend God. And he was going on, no doubt, when he was interrupted by their clamour, to speak to the last point, the destruction of the temple, and the change of the law by Christ. Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken - The sum of his discourse is this: I acknowledge the glory of God revealed to the fathers, ver. 2; the calling of Moses, ver. 34, &c.; the dignity of the law, verses 8, 38, 44; the holiness of this place, verses 7, 45, 47. And indeed the law is more ancient than the temple; the promise more ancient than the law. For God showed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children freely, ver. 2, &c.; 9, &c.; 17,&c.; 32, 34, 35; and they showed faith and obedience to God, ver. 4, 20, &c., 23, particularly by their regard for the law, ver. 8, and the promised land, ver. 16. Meantime, God never confined his presence to this one place or to the observers of the law. For he hath been acceptably worshipped before the law was given, or the temple built, and out of this land, ver. 2, 9, 33, 44. And that our fathers and their posterity were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings, ver. 4, &c.; 14, 29, 44, and exile, ver. 43, show. But you and your fathers have always been evil, ver. 9; have withstood Moses, ver. 25, &c., 39, &c.; have despised the land, ver. 39, forsaken God, ver. 40, &c., superstitiously honoured the temple, ver. 48, resisted God and his Spirit, ver. 50, killed the prophets and the Messiah himself, ver. 51, and kept not the law for which ye contend, ver. 53. Therefore God is not bound to you; much less to you alone. And truly this solemn testimony of Stephen is most worthy of his character, as a man full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith and power: in which, though he does not advance so many regular propositions, contradictory to those of his adversaries, yet he closely and nervously answers them all. Nor can we doubt but he would, from these premises, have drawn inferences touching the destruction of the temple, the abrogation of the Mosaic law, the punishment of that rebellious people; and above all, touching Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah, had not his discourse been interrupted by the clamours of the multitude, stopping their ears, and rushing upon him. Men, brethren, and fathers - All who are here present, whether ye are my equals in years, or of more advanced age. The word which in this and in many other places is rendered men is a mere expletive. The God of glory - The glorious God, appeared to Abraham before he dwelt in Haran - Therefore Abraham knew God, long before he was in this land. Gen. xii, 1.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59 Stephen, being permitted to answer for himself relative to…
CHAPTER VII.
Stephen, being permitted to answer for himself relative to the
Read full note →
charge of blasphemy brought against him by his accusers, gives
a circumstantial relation of the call of Abraham, when he dwelt
in Mesopotamia, in Charran, c., 1-8.
The history of Jacob and Joseph, 9-17.
The persecution of their fathers in Egypt, 18, 19.
The history of Moses and his acts till the exodus from Egypt,
20-37.
The rebellion and idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness,
38-43.
The erection of the tabernacle of witness, which continued till
the time of David, 44-46.
Of the temple built by Solomon for that God who cannot be
confined to temples built by hands, 47-50.
Being probably interrupted in the prosecution of his discourse,
he urges home the charge of rebellion against God, persecution
of his prophets, the murder of Christ, and neglect of their own
law against them, 51-53.
They are filled with indignation, and proceed to violence, 54.
He sees the glory of God, and Christ at the right hand of the
Father and declares the glorious vision, 55, 56.
They rush upon him, drag him out of the city, and stone him,
57, 58.
He involves the Lord Jesus, prays for his murderers, and
expires, 59, 60.
NOTES ON CHAP. VII.
Verse 1. Are these things so?] Hast thou predicted the destruction of the temple? And hast thou said that Jesus of Nazareth shall change our customs, abolish our religious rites and temple service? Hast thou spoken these blasphemous things against Moses, and against God? Here was some colour of justice; for Stephen was permitted to defend himself. And, in order to do this he thought it best to enter into a detail of their history from the commencement of their nation; and thus show how kindly God had dealt with them, and how ungraciously they and their fathers had requited Him. And all this naturally led him to the conclusion, that God could no longer bear with a people the cup of whose iniquity had been long overflowing; and therefore they might expect to find wrath, without mixture of mercy.
But how could St. Luke get all this circumstantial account? 1. He might have been present, and heard the whole; or, more probably, he had the account from St. Paul, whose companion he was, and who was certainly present when St. Stephen was judged and stoned, for he was consenting to his death, and kept the clothes of them who stoned him. See Ac 7:58; Ac 8:1; Ac 22:20.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 30, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48, 51, 54, 57, 59 Act 7:1-3. Then said the high-priest — Who was…
Act 7:1-3. Then said the high-priest — Who was president of the council, and, as such, the mouth of the court; Are these things so? — Are they as these witnesses have deposed? for thou art permitted to speak for thyself, and make thy defence. And he said — Stephen had been accused of blasphemy against Moses, and even against God; and of speaking against the temple and the law, threatening that Jesus would destroy the one and change the other. In answer to this accusation, rehearsing, as it were, the articles of his historical creed, he speaks of God with high reverence, and a grateful sense of a long series of acts of goodness to the Israelites; and of Moses with great respect, on account of his important and honourable employments under God; of the temple with regard, as being built to the honour of God; yet not with such superstition as the Jews; putting them in mind, that no temple could comprehend God. And he was going on, no doubt, when he was interrupted by their clamour, to speak to the last point, the destruction of the temple, and the change of the law by Christ. The sum of his discourse is this: I acknowledge the glory of God revealed to the fathers, Act 7:2; the calling of Moses, Act 7:34, &c.; the dignity of the law, Act 7:8; Act 7:38; Act 7:44; the holiness of this place, Act 7:7; Act 7:45; Act 7:47. And, indeed, the law is more ancient than the temple; the promise more ancient than the law. For God showed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children, freely, Act 7:2, &c., 9, &c., 17, &c., 32, 34, 45; and they showed faith and obedience to God, Act 7:4; Act 7:20, &c., 23; particularly by their regard for the law, Act 7:8, and the promised land, Act 7:16. Meantime God never confined his presence to this one place, or to the observers of the law. For he hath been acceptably worshipped, before the law was given, or the temple built, and out of this land, Act 7:2; Act 7:9; Act 7:33; Act 7:44. And that our fathers and their posterity were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings, Act 7:4, &c., 14, 29, 44, and exile, Act 7:43, show. But you and your fathers have always been evil, Act 7:9; have withstood Moses, Act 7:25, &c., 39, &c.; have despised the land, Act 7:39; forsaken God, Act 7:40, &c.; superstitiously honoured the temple, Act 7:48; resisted God and his Spirit, Act 7:50; killed the prophets, and the Messiah himself, Act 7:51; and kept not the law, for which ye contend, Act 7:53. therefore God is not bound to you, much less to you alone. And, truly, this solemn testimony of Stephen is most worthy of his character, as a man full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith, and power: in which, though he does not advance so many regular propositions, contradictory to those of his adversaries, yet he closely and nervously answers them all. Nor can we doubt but he would, from these premises, have drawn inferences touching the destruction of the temple, the abrogation of the Mosaic law, the punishment of that rebellious people, and, above all, touching Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah, had not his discourse been interrupted by the clamours of the multitude, stopping their ears and rushing upon him. Men, brethren, and fathers — All who are here present, whether ye are my equals in years, or of more advanced age. The word which, in this and many other places, is rendered men, is a mere expletive. The God of glory — The glorious God; appeared to Abraham before he dwelt in Charran — Therefore Abraham knew God long before he was in this land. And he said, Get thee out of thy country — Depart from this thy native country, which is become idolatrous; and from thy kindred — Who are now alienated from my worship; and come into the land — A remote land; which I shall show thee — And to which, by my extraordinary interposition, I will guide thee; though at present thou dost not know even its situation, much less the way leading to it. See note on Gen 12:2.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 Then said the high priest - See the notes…
Then said the high priest - See the notes on Mat 2:4. In this case the high priest seems to have presided in the council.
Are these things so? - To wit, the charge alleged against him of blasphemy against Moses and the temple, Act 6:13-14.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58 Are these things so? The high priest speaks after…
Are these things so? The high priest speaks after this mild manner, being either terrified, or charmed with his angelical countenance. St. Stephen’s design in this discourse, was to shew them, first, that he was falsely accused of speaking either against Moses, or the law, for which he shews so great a veneration. 2. He puts them in mind, that the true worship of God may subsist without a temple, as it did in the time of Abraham, and the patriarchs, before the law was given, or the temple built. 3. That as their forefathers had been rebellious to Moses, and disobedient to the prophets, whom they many times persecuted even to death, so they had lately resisted, persecuted, and crucified their Messias. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
John Nelson Darby 1862 · Public Domain On v1 Acts Chapter 7
Acts Chapter 7
Stephen, [11] as far as we are told, had not known the Lord during His life on earth. Certainly he was not appointed, like the apostles, to be a witness of that life. He was simply the instrument of the Holy Ghost, distributing to whom He would.
Read full note →
He begins therefore their history from the beginning of God’s way, that is, from Abraham, called out by the revelation of the God of glory, slow indeed to obey, but at length led by the patient grace of God into Canaan. Nevertheless, he was a stranger in the promised land; and bondage was to be the portion of his descendants, until God interposed in grace. The lot, therefore, of the blessed patriarch was not that of possessing the promises, but of being a stranger; and that of his descendants was to be captives until God delivered them with a strong arm. Nothing can be more striking than the calm superiority to circumstances displayed by Stephen. He recites to the Jews a history they could not deny, a history they boasted in, yet it condemned them utterly. They were doing as their fathers had done. But two persons are specially prominent in Stephen’s account, in connection with the goodness of God towards Israel at this period-Joseph and Moses. Israel had rejected them both, given up Joseph to the Gentiles, rejected Moses as judge and leader. It was, in cases which the Jews could not deny or object to, the history of Christ also, who, too, at the time appointed of God, will indeed be the Redeemer of Israel. This is the substance of Stephen’s argument. The Jews had always rejected those whom God had sent and in whom the Holy Ghost had acted, and the testimony of the same Holy Ghost in the prophets who had spoken of the Christ whom they had now betrayed and slain. Besides this, according to Moses, they had worshipped false gods, even from the time of their deliverance out of Egypt [12] -a sin which, however great the long-suffering of God, would cause them to be carried away, now that they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, beyond the Babylon which had already been their punishment.
It is a most striking summing up of their whole history-the history of man with all the means of restoration supplied. The full measure of guilt is stated. They had received the law and had not kept it, rejected the prophets who had testified of Christ, and betrayed and murdered Christ Himself-always resisted the Holy Ghost. What they did trust in, the temple, God rejected. God Himself has been, as it were, a stranger in the land of Canaan; and if Solomon built Him a house, it was in order that the Holy Ghost might declare that He who had heaven for His throne, and earth for His footstool, whose dominion was universal, would not dwell in houses of stone, which were the creation of His own hand. Thus we have the complete summing up of their history, connected with the last days of their judgment. They always resisted the Holy Ghost, as they had always disobeyed the law. Judaism was judged, after the long patience of God and all His ways of grace with man as means were exhausted. For Israel was man under the special dealings and care of God. Man’s guilt now is not only sin, but sin in spite of all that God has done. It was the turning-point of man’s history. Law, prophets, Christ, the Holy Ghost, all tried, and man at enmity against God. The cross had really proved it, but this had added the rejection of the testimony of the Holy Ghost to a glorified Christ. All was over with man, and began anew with the second Man ever in connection with heaven.
Their conscience convicted, and their heart hardened, their will unchanged, the members of the council were filled with rage, and gnashed upon him with their teeth. But if Stephen was to bear this definitive testimony against Israel, he was not merely to render the testimony, but much more to place it in its true relative position, by a living expression of that which a believer was in virtue of the presence of the Holy Ghost here below dwelling in him. In their history we have man always resisting the Holy Ghost; in Stephen, a man full of Him consequent on redemption.
Such are the elements of this touching and striking scene, which forms an epoch in the history of the assembly. The heads of Israel gnash their teeth with rage, against the mighty and convincing testimony of the Holy Ghost, with which Stephen was filled. They had rejected a glorified Christ, as they had slain a humbled one. Let us follow out the effect as to Stephen himself. He looks stedfastly up to heaven; now fully opened to faith. It is thither that the Spirit directs the mind, making it capable of fixing itself there. He reveals to one who is thus filled with Himself the glory of God on high, and Jesus in that glory at the right hand of God, in the place of power-Son of man in the far higher place than that of Psa 2:1-12, that of Psa 8:1-9, though all things were not yet put under Him (compare Joh 1:50-51). Afterwards He gives the effect of the testimony borne in the presence of the power of Satan, the murderer.
“I see,” said Stephen, “the heavens opened.” Such then is the position of the true believer-heavenly upon the earth-in presence of the world that rejected Christ, the murderous world; the believer, alive in death, sees by the power of the Holy Ghost into heaven, and the Son of man at the right hand of God. Stephen does not say “Jesus.” The Spirit characterises Him as the Son of man! Precious testimony to man! Nor is it to the glory of God that he testifies (this was natural to heaven) but to the Son of man in the glory, heaven being open to him, and then looks to Him as the Lord Jesus, to receive his spirit, the first example and full testimony of the state of the believer’s soul after death with Christ glorified.
With regard to the progress of the testimony, it is not now that Jesus is the Messiah, and He will return if you repent (which, however, does not cease to be true), but it is the Son of man in heaven, which is open to the man that is filled with the Holy Ghost-that heaven to which God is about to transport the soul, as it is the hope and the testimony of those that are His. The patience of God was doubtless still acting in Israel; but the Holy Ghost opened new scenes and new hopes to the believer. [13]
But remark that Stephen, in consequence of seeing Jesus in heaven, perfectly resembles Jesus upon earth-a fact precious in grace to us: only that the glory of His Person is in all cases carefully guarded. Jesus, though heaven was opened to Him, was Himself the object to which heaven looked down, and who was publicly owned and sealed of the Father. He did not need a vision to present an object to His faith, nor did it produce any transformation into the same image by revelation of the glory. But “Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit” is found in “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And the affection for Israel which expresses itself in intercession, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” is found again in “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge”; save that here the Holy Ghost does not now affirm that they are ignorant.
But it is well to dwell a moment on that which brings out more clearly the especial position of Stephen, the vessel of the Spirit’s testimony, so definitively rejected by the Jews; and the divine character and Person of Jesus, even where His disciple is most like Him. Heaven is open to Jesus, the Holy Ghost descends upon Him and He is acknowledged the Son of God. Heaven opens on Jesus, and the angels descend upon the Son of man: but He has no object presented to Him; He is Himself the object on which heaven is gazing. Heaven will open at the end of the age, and Jesus Himself come forth on the white horse (that is, in judgment and triumph). Here, too, heaven opens, and the disciple, the Christian, full of the Holy Ghost, sees into it, and there beholds Jesus at the right hand of God. Jesus is still the object, before of heaven, now of the believing man who is filled with the Holy Ghost; so that, as to the object of faith and the position of the believer, this scene is definitively characteristic. Jesus has no object, but is the object of heaven when it opens; the saint has, and it is Jesus Himself in heaven when it is open. Rejected, and rejected by the Jews, like Jesus, partaking in His sufferings, and filled with His Spirit of grace, Stephen’s eyes are fixed on high, on the heaven which the Holy Ghost opens to him; and he sees the Son of man there ready to receive his spirit. The rest will come later; but it is not only Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution, but also the souls of His believing people until the moment of resurrection, and the whole church, in spirit, detached from the world that rejected Him, and from Judaism that opposed the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The latter, Judaism, is no longer at all recognised; there is no longer any room for the long-suffering of God towards it. Its place is taken by heaven, and by the assembly, which, so far as it is consistent, follows her Master there in spirit, while waiting for His return.
Footnotes for Acts Chapter 7
11: He is the expression of the power of the Holy Ghost witnessing to Christ glorified, who had been now thus presented to Israel, who had already rejected Him in humiliation. From the fall to the flood, man, though not left without witness, was otherwise left to himself. There were no special ways and institutions of God. The result was the flood, to cleanse, so to speak, the earth from its horrible pollution and violence. In the new world God began to deal with man. Government was set up in Noah. But in Abraham one was, by electing grace, called out, and God’s promises given to him when the world had turned to demons. This began the history of God’s people, but the question of righteousness was not raised. This the law did, claiming it from man. Then prophets came in patient grace. Then, the last appeal of God for fruits, and testimony of grace, the Son was sent. He was now rejected, and on His intercession the Holy Ghost had witnessed to His glory by Peter (Act 3:1-26) for their repentance, and now dealt with them as to it by Stephen.
12: Observe, too, here, that however long the patience of God had lasted, repentance not being its result, the first sin, the first departure from God, bears its penalty at the end.
13: The Holy Ghost opens heaven to our view, and enables us to contemplate that which is found there; and forms us on earth according to the character of Jesus. As to the change that took place in the progress of God’s dealings, it appears to me that it was the realisation by the Spirit of the effect of the veil being rent. Jesus is seen still standing; because, until the rejection by Israel of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, He did not definitely sit down, waiting for the judgment of His enemies. Rather He remained, in the position of High Priest, standing; the believer with Him on high by the Spirit, and the soul having thus far joined Him there in heaven; for now, by the blood of Christ, by that new and living way, it could enter within the veil. On the other hand, the Jews having done the same thing with regard to the testimony of the Holy Ghost that they did with regard to Jesus, having (so to speak) in Stephen sent a messenger after Him to say, “We will not have this man to reign over us,” Christ definitively takes His place, seated in heaven, until He shall judge the enemies who would not that He should reign over them. It is in this last position that He is viewed in the Epistle to the Hebrews; in which consequently they are exhorted to come out of the camp of Israel, following after the victim whose blood had been carried into the sanctuary; thus anticipating the judgment, which fell upon Jerusalem intermediately by means of the Romans, in order to set the nation aside, as it will be finally executed by Jesus Himself. The position of Stephen therefore resembles that of Jesus, the testimony being that of the Spirit to Jesus glorified. This makes the great principle of the Epistle to the Hebrews very plain. The doctrine of the church, announced by Paul after the revelation made to him on his way to Damascus, goes further than this; that is, it declares the union of Christians with Jesus in heaven, and not merely their entrance into the holy place through the rent veil, where the priest might only go in previously, behind the veil which hid God from the people.
John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On vv1, 17, 30, 35, 44, 54 B.—Stephen Vindicates himself in a Powerful Discourse
B.—Stephen Vindicates himself in a Powerful Discourse
Act_7:1-53
Read full note →
_____________
§ I. The first part of the discourse, embracing the age of the Patriarchs
Act_7:1-16.
1Then said the high priest, Are these things so?1 2And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when hewas in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran [Haran, (Gen_11:31)], 3And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the2 land which I shall show thee. 4Then came [went] he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran [Haran]: and [. And] from thence, when his father wasdead [had died], he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. 5And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on [in it, not even a foot-breadth]: yet [and] he promised that he would give it to him3 for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. 6And [But] God spake on this wise, That [that] his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should [would] bring them [it, (ἆυτὸ, the seed)] into bondage, and entreat them [it] evil four hundred years. 7And [years; and] the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge,said God; and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. 8And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; and [circumcision. And] so Abraham [he] begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacobbegat the twelve patriarchs. 9And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph [enviedJoseph, and sold him] into Egypt: but God was with him, 10And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and [over] all his house.11Now there came a dearth [famine] over all the land of Egypt4 and Chanaan [Canaan],and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance. 12But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he [But J. heard that there was grain in store, and] sentout our fathers first [our fathers the first time to Egypt]5. 13And at the second time Joseph was made known to [was recognized by] his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred [race] was made [became] known to Pharaoh. 14Then sent Joseph [But J. sent], and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen [seventy-five]souls. 15So [And] Jacob went down unto Egypt,6 and died, he, and ourfathers, 16And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that7 Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.8
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act_7:1. Then said the high priest.—The high priest, as the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, gives Stephen an opportunity to speak in defence of himself; while he thus recognizes the rights of the accused, the term ἄρα, connected with the interrogative particle εἰ, expresses even favorable sentiments, or is at least intended to exhibit the equity of the speaker.
Act_7:2-3. a. And he said.—It is highly probable that Stephen, whom we have every reason to regard as a Hellenist, employed the Greek language, when he delivered the present discourse (the design and genuineness of which are considered below). [See General Remarks appended to Exeg. note on Act_7:53.—Tr.]. This opinion, which is suggested by his birth and education, is confirmed by the general complexion of the discourse; the latter corresponds throughout to the Alexandrian Version. We possess, besides, conclusive historical testimony that the Greek language was, at that time, so generally understood and spoken in Palestine, that the delivery of a Greek discourse in the Sanhedrin could not be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance.—The terms of the address, ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες, were conciliatory; they both indicated that the speaker regarded the members of the council with reverence as fathers, and also involved an appeal to their common nationality (brethren).
b. The God of glory.—Stephen commences his discourse with this descriptive name of God for wise reasons. It was one of his objects to counteract the slanderous report which had been circulated, that he had blasphemed God (Act_6:11); and to repel any possible charge that the Christians did not properly revere Him. Hence he expresses his own devout and reverential sentiments, and gives to God the honor which belongs to him. But he has also another, and a more direct object, when he refers specially to the glory (δόξα) of God; even at this early stage in his discourse, as well as afterwards, his mind is engaged in the contemplation of the inconceivable grandeur, the boundless power, and the absolute sovereignty of God. In his view, God is independent of every object, animate or inanimate, and may reveal himself to any creature, in any mode, and in any place, according to his own pleasure. The present expression, especially when viewed in its connection with ὤφθη, reminds us of that exalted and wonderful celestial splendor which usually attended earlier theophanies or manifestations of God. [See Exo_24:16; Exo_33:18 ff; Exo_40:34; Lev_9:23, and comp. Herzog: Real-Encyk. art. Schechina, XIII. 476, and Theophanie, XVI. Tr.]
c. Before he dwelt in Charran.—Abraham accompanied his father Terah, when the latter journeyed to Charran (the Carræ of the Romans), a very ancient city of Mesopotamia, situated on a frequented route, and probably in a south-westerly direction from Ur of the Chaldees, in which region they had previously resided (see Winer: Realw. art. Haran [and Herzog: Real-Encyk. V. 539]). It was, according to the Mosaic narrative [Gen_11:31], the original intention of Terah, who took with him his son Abram, together with Sarai and Lot, to proceed as far as Canaan; but he advanced no further than Charran [Haran], where he remained until his death. It is only afterwards (Gen_12:1 ff.) that mention is made of the divine command which Abram received, to forsake his country and his kindred, and journey into a land which God would show; the divine blessing was promised at the same time. It undoubtedly seems to follow from this statement that Abraham did not receive the revelation which included a command to go to the land that should be shown to him, at a period anterior to his residence in Charran. Nevertheless, Stephen represents this revelation as having occurred in Mesopotamia (Act_7:2), or in the land of the Chaldeans (Act_7:4), i.e. in Ur in Chaldea; and he assigns it to a period which preceded the first migration of the family, when it was their more immediate object to reach the city of Charran. And, indeed, the very terms which God employs in Gen_12:1, are here repeated in Act_7:3, only with the difference that they appear in an abbreviated form. Hence, various interpreters (e. g. Grotius; de Wette; Meyer), have maintained that Stephen had involuntarily committed a mistake, in the excitement of the moment, and had assigned to an earlier period and to another region, (that of Ur,) the divine command which Abraham really received afterward, when he had already reached Charran. Although we do not believe that it would be perilous to concede this point, there is another circumstance, conflicting with the opinion of these interpreters, which claims consideration. It is well known from statements in Philo (De Abrahamo. § 15.) and Josephus, (Antiq. i. 7, 1.), that the Jews, in that age, and particularly those of Alexandria, held the opinion that Abraham had already received a divine command while he dwelt in Ur. It is this tradition which Stephen adopts, applying the words in Gen_12:1 to that supposed earlier call of God. And, indeed, there are traces even in the book of Genesis itself, of such a command of God which Abraham received in Ur. In Gen_15:7, God says to Abraham: “I am Jehovah, who led thee forth from Ur in Chaldea (הוֹצֵאתִיךָ), to give thee this land.” These words seem to imply plainly that God had distinctly communicated his will to Abraham, that he should depart from Ur; and there is a special reference to these words in Neh_9:7. It is true that no mention is made in Gen_11:31 of any direct command of God, and the departure from Ur appears to be a voluntary act of Terah, rather than one of obedience to the divine will on the part of Abraham. But the peculiar construction of the book of Genesis ought not to be overlooked; it is evidently founded on several documents and accounts, which had, to some extent, been originally composed from different points of view, and this observation is specially applicable to Acts 11. and Acts 12. Accordingly, the method adopted by the later Jews, (which was followed by Stephen also,) of viewing the event in connection with its causes and its consequences, cannot, with propriety, be rejected unconditionally as erroneous and unhistorical; we perceive, on the contrary, that Stephen’s statement is not entirely unsupported by the scriptural records themselves.
Act_7:4. When his father was dead.—Here again Stephen assents to the current opinion of his age, which is recorded by Philo [“who falls into the same mistake, de Migr. Abrah., § 32” (Alf.)], and which could scarcely have been suggested simply by the consideration that filial duty would not have allowed Abraham to abandon his father in his old age. The passage, Gen_11:31-32; Gen_12:1 ff., when read as a continuous and progressive narrative, does, at first, convey the impression that Abraham did not receive the command to migrate to Canaan, before his father’s death [while, in truth, the mention of that event in Gen_11:32 is proleptical or anticipatory (Alford).—Tr.]. There can be no doubt, when the chronological data are considered, that Terah was still living when Abraham departed from Charran. For, according to Gen_11:27, he was seventy years old when he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; the statement doubtless refers to the particular year in which Abraham was born. According to Gen_11:32, Terah died at the age of two hundred and five years. But Abraham was only seventy-five years old when he departed from Charran, Gen_12:4. Therefore, Terah must have lived sixty years in Charran, after Abraham’s departure [70+75=205–60]. Besides, the expression; “from thy father’s house” (מִבֵּית אָבִיךָ) seems to imply that Terah was still alive, when Abraham received that command. Hence, Stephen here follows a chronological tradition which seems, indeed, at first view, to be supported by Gen_11:32 compared with Act_12:1 ff., but which, on a closer inspection, is found to be erroneous. This fact ought to be admitted without hesitation, for all the attempts that have been made to reconcile these conflicting statements, have been failures, and are, moreover, unnecessary. Nothing could be more truly a product of the imagination, than the theory (of Bengel and others) that Abraham had indeed proceeded to Canaan during the life of his father, but still retained his home in Charran, and had, only after the decease of Terah, sundered all his early ties, and established himself “essentially” in Canaan. [This interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning and construction of μετῴκ. αὐτ. εἰς in Act_7:4. (de Wette, and Alford.)—Tr.]. There is as little foundation for the interpretation of others (Luger: Zweck d. Rede d. St., 1838; Ols.; Stier) that Stephen intended to say that Abraham had left Charran after the spiritual death of Terah, i.e., after the latter had become an idolater. For how can ἀποθανεῖν admit of such an interpretation, when unattended by a single term that would indicate it, and when, besides, nothing whatever is found in the context, which suggests such a meaning of the verb? Nor can it be proved that this was the usual interpretation in the age of the apostles; it is, at least, an error that Philo countenances it. It was, first of all, proposed in the Talmud, and even there occurs merely as an expedient for evading the chronological difficulty.—Baumgarten thinks (I. 131 ff.) that the language used in Act_7:4, simply means that now, when Jehovah is entering into new relations with mankind, Abraham should be viewed, at such an important epoch, not as in any manner related to Terah, but as one who was connected with him by no ties whatever. But if Stephen had intended to convey such a thought, he would have necessarily employed an entirely different form of expression. [Other solutions of this exegetical problem are not noticed by the author, probably because they carry their own refutation with them, e. g., that Abraham was Terah’s youngest son, sixty years younger than Haran, or, that the chronology of the Samaritan text should be adopted, etc.—Tr.].—Is it necessary to have recourse to so many devices? Why should we not concede that Stephen, like his contemporaries, adopted an opinion which the text of the sacred narrative seems, at first view, to suggest, but which a closer investigation has shown to be erroneous? Even if he made an inaccurate statement with regard to a question in chronology, such an incident derogates neither from the wisdom nor from the fulness of the Spirit by which he spake (Act_6:10).
Act_7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it; κληρονομία is property obtained by inheritance, and capable of being transmitted to heirs.—This statement is by no means contradicted by the fact that Abraham purchased of Ephron a field with a cave (Gen. Acts 23); it is precisely the circumstance that he was compelled to purchase the field, which establishes the fact that he owned no land as yet bestowed on him by God. (Bengel). The explanation that Stephen refers to the earliest period of Abraham’s residence in Palestine, and that the purchase occurred at a later time, namely, after the institution of circumcision, Act_7:8 (Meyer), is not satisfactory; these two periods, an early and a later, are obtruded on the text, which not only lays no stress on such a distinction, but does not even allude to it.—Stephen speaks emphatically of the fact that the divine promise in reference to the land, was given to Abraham before a child was born unto him, for the purpose of reminding his hearers that both the possession of the inheritance, and also the birth of an heir, depended entirely on God,—the inheritance and the son were both the free gifts of his grace.
Act_7:6-7. And God spake on this wise.—Stephen quotes the prophecy in Gen_15:13, in the language of the Alexandrian version in general, although certain variations from it are discoverable. He repeats, for instance, the original words in the indirect form of speech, and it is only in Act_7:7, that he passes from the narrative to the direct form, which he indicates by the words: εἶπεν ὁ Θεός. And, at the close of Act_7:7, he combines Exo_3:12 with Gen_15:13; the former passage contains a promise given to Moses in Horeb, and refers to the worship which would soon be offered in the vicinity of that mountain. This promise is interwoven with the one given to Abraham, which referred to the worship of Israel at a future period in Canaan, the land of their inheritance. We may undoubtedly find an “inaccurate” (de Wette) reference here, if we adhere very scrupulously to the literal meaning. But can we take it amiss, if Stephen, instead of anxiously dwelling on the mere letter, or on minute details, rather surveys with profound judgment the whole wide extent of the divine economy—and if he then combines a promise given to Abraham with one addressed to Moses, and, in the case of the latter, even looks beyond to a still later day? He does not intend to quote the identical words to which he refers, but, rather, to connect and apply them.—We may form the same judgment respecting the period of four hundred years which Stephen assigns (Act_7:6) to the bondage in Egypt. The whole duration of that bondage, four hundred and thirty years, is, without doubt, stated with chronological exactness in Exo_12:40, while Stephen avails himself of a privilege which cannot be reasonably denied to him, and merely mentions a round number. [For an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between this passage and Gal_3:17, see O. Schmoller, ad loc., in a succeeding volume of this commentary.—Tr.].—The connection shows that κρινῶ in Act_7:7 refers to the well-deserved penal judgment which God would subsequently execute in the case of the tyrants who oppressed his people.
Act_7:8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision.—The covenant which God made with Abraham is termed a διαθήκη τ̀ῆς περιτομῆς, as circumcision was not only the “token” [sign] of this covenant (אוֹת בְּרִית, Gen_17:11), but was also itself an essential constituent part of this covenant: (הִמּוֹל לָכֶםי כָּל־זָכָר זאֹת בְּריתִי ־ ־ ־, Gen_17:10).—The phraseology in this verse: ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ διαθ. περιτ., gave instead of made the covenant with Abraham, seems to be designedly chosen, in order to indicate that the establishment of the covenant was a voluntary act of God, and, indeed, a gracious gift, and that, when He reveals himself, he is by no means subject to limitations or conditions imposed by men:—[καὶ οὕτως, and thus, i. e., in accordance with the terms of the covenant, God gave a son to Abraham, and Abraham, on his part, circumcised that son.—Tr.]
Act_7:9-13. And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph.—This is the first occasion on which, in this general view of sacred history, sin is mentioned, the reference being to the envy with which Jacob’s sons regarded their brother Joseph. Jealousy and envy influenced them to give him away (ἀπέδοντο), i.e., they did all that lay in their power, to remove him for ever from themselves and the whole family, and to degrade him. But although they cast him off, God was with him. He delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharoah. The sense here is: he was very favorably received by Pharoah, whose confidence he acquired by his wise interpretation of certain dreams, and by the counsels which he imparted to that king. It accords better with the context to refer χάριν to the favor of the king than to the grace of God; the latter is already indicated in the words: ἦν ὁ Θεὸς μετʼ αὐτοῦ, and is illustrated in all the facts that are stated, including the royal favor which Joseph enjoyed. [Pharaoh was the common title of the ancient kings of Egypt, as Ptolemy (Greek, warrior) was applied to those of the Græco-Macedonian period. The latest authorities confirm the statement of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 6, 2), that the word is not a proper name but an appellative, signifying, in the ancient Egyptian, the king. (Herzog: Real-Encyk. Vol. XI. p. 490).—Tr.]
Act_7:14-15. Threescore and fifteen souls.—Stephen here follows the Septuagint version, in which seventy-five souls are reckoned, whereas the original Hebrew text mentions only the round number seventy; see Gen_46:27, and Exo_1:5; the latter includes Joseph and his two sons. The Sept. counts, in the former passage, not less than nine sons of Joseph. [Commentators generally admit that the Septuagint text has been interpolated and is somewhat confused, but no one has furnished a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the principles adopted in the modes of computation, which would clearly furnish, as results, the respective numbers of seventy and seventy-five. “Stephen, who adheres to the Septuagint, quoted the most current and familiar version, without alteration” (J. A. Alexander). Whether the number was seventy or seventy-five, “it was a mere handful compared with the (subsequent) increase.” (Hackett).—Tr.]
Act_7:16. And were carried over into Sychem.—The words αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν, in Act_7:15, constitute the nominative to the verb μετετέθησαν. Stephen says that the remains of Jacob, and also of his sons, were carried to Sychem; his language has occasioned here, too, perplexity with respect to several particulars. 1. We are told in Gen_50:13, that Joseph and his brethren buried the body of Jacob in the cave of the field near Hebron [“Mamre; the same is Hebron,” Gen_23:19], whereas Stephen says that Jacob was buried in Sychem. 2. According to Jos_24:32, the Israelites, when they took possession of Canaan, buried the bones of Joseph, which they brought from Egypt, in Shechem [Sychem]; but it is not stated either in this passage or elsewhere in the Old Testament, that the bones of Joseph’s brethren, whom the terms employed by Stephen include, were buried at the same place. 3. Stephen says that Abraham bought the piece of ground in Sychem, of the sons of Emmor [Greek form of the Hebrew Hamor]; πατρός, and not υἱοῦ, [as in the Vulg. filii] is to be supplied before τοῦ Συχέμ. [So J. A. Alexander also holds, appealing to Gen_33:19; Gen_34:2; Gen_34:4; Gen_34:6; Gen_34:8; Gen_34:13; Gen_34:18; Gen_34:20; Gen_34:24; Gen_34:26.—Tr.]. Yet it was not Abraham, but Jacob, who bought this piece of ground of the former owners. Gen_33:18-19. Consequently, Stephen confounded the latter with the spot near Hebron, which Abraham had bought. Every possible attempt has been made to explain these variations, from the period in which the oldest manuscripts were written (one of which [E.] substitutes ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν for Ἀβραάμ, in order to evade the third variation mentioned above), down to the age of the Reformers, and thence, to the present day. [Kuinoel, in an extended note ad loc. discusses several of the solutions that have been attempted, without being attended with entire success. Hackett, who appears to adopt Calvin’s very positive opinion (Com. Tholuck’s ed. IV. 118) that, in the third discrepancy, the error lies in the name Abraham, proposes to omit it, or substitute Jacob; “ὠνήσατο without a subject,” he adds, “could be taken as impersonal: one purchased=was purchased”; he refers to Winer: Gram. N. T. § 58, 9, where the grammatical principle is illustrated.—Tr.]. Interpreters have, without success, availed themselves of every resource which the laws of Criticism, or of Grammar, or the principles of Lexicology or of Hermeneutics seemed to offer. The theory has been proposed that two burials are described in terms which were intentionally abbreviated, or that the passage before us speaks of two purchases. It is, however, the most judicious course to admit frankly, that, with reference to the purchase of the ground and the burial of Jacob, it might easily occur that Stephen, whose discourse treated an entirely different and a loftier theme, should, in his rapid course, confound two analogous transactions. [Olsh. and Alford concur.] As to the burial of Joseph’s brethren in Canaan, the Old Testament presents no conflicting statements, but merely observes silence; it is very probable that such a tradition, the existence of which at a later period can be proved, was already current in Stephen’s age, and adopted by him. [J. A. Alexander, who briefly refers to several modes of explaining the apparent contradictions, without deciding whether “unusual constructions or textual corruptions” should be admitted, closes with the following remark: “It is easy to cut the knot by assuming a mistake on Stephen’s part, but not so easy to account for its being made by such a man, addressing such an audience, and then perpetuated in such a history, without correction or exposure, for a course of ages.”—The reading in Cod. Sin., Act_7:16, does not differ from that found in text. rec.—Tr.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. God is ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης, Act_7:2. These words contain a doctrinal statement which is of wide application, and which distinctly defines the position assumed by the speaker. All that God is, in himself—all his acts—and all the modes in which he manifests himself, bear the impress of his glory, that is, of absolute greatness, power and majesty. His ways are perfectly free, and entirely beyond the control of any creature. He can reveal himself wheresoever he will, and is not restricted to any spot in creation, to any country, city, or building (such as the temple). This view, when speculatively considered, seems to be very naturally suggested by our conception of God as the Infinite Spirit. But man is easily carried away from this truth by a certain centrifugal force, and begins to conceive of God as if he were, in a certain manner, bound to some finite object. It is, therefore, perpetually necessary, to lay stress on the conception of the absolute glory of God, in order to counteract those delusive limitations of Him who is infinite.
2. Great prominence is given to Joseph’s life in that view of Sacred History which Stephen presents. The thought had doubtless occurred to him, with more or less distinctness, that Joseph was a type of Jesus himself. And, indeed, the number of the points of resemblance between Joseph and Jesus Christ, will be found to be surprisingly great, when we closely examine their personal history, their experience, and their works. Stephen directs attention specially to the fact, that, although Joseph’s brethren were hostile to him, and exposed him to ignominy, God was, nevertheless, with him, and exalted him.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act_7:2. And he said.—“Be ready always to give an answer, etc.,” 1Pe_3:15-16.—Brethren, and fathers.—He addresses them in kind and respectful terms, without either carnal zeal or spiritual pride, although they by no means demonstrated that they regarded him either with fraternal or parental affection.—The God of glory, etc.—A servant of God should accustom himself to justify the ways of God, rather than his own. (Quesn.).—God, revealed of old as a God of glory, in the government of his own chosen people: He manifests, I. His unlimited power; II. His free grace; III. His unerring wisdom.
Act_7:3. Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred.—Self-denial is one of the primary constituents of faith in God. (Starke).—Every Christian must go forth with Abraham, renounce the friendship of the world, and all comfort derived from creatures, put all his trust in God, and love him alone. (id.)
Act_7:4. Then came he out … and from thence, etc.—The life of the believer is a continued pilgrimage; each short sojourn is succeeded by another departure, until he enters the true Canaan.
Act_7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it.—This world is not the inheritance of the children of God; they have not their portion in it, but are mere sojourners. (Quesn.).—He, to whom God is all in all, is rich, even if he does not own so much as a foot-breadth. (Starke).—Yet he promised that he would give, etc.—The inheritance of faith is in the unseen world; yea, the believer is already put in possession of it by the promise of God; Heb_11:1.
Act_7:6. That his seed should sojourn, etc.—The divine promise was so expressed, as to prove a severe trial of Abraham’s faith; we must suffer with Christ, as well as be glorified together with him; Rom_8:17. (Starke).
Act_7:7. And the nation … I judge.—God chooses his own time for humbling his people, but also his own time for judging the agents by whom they are humbled. When his rods are no longer serviceable, he casts them into the fire. In each case the decree proceeds from his justice; the whole history, alike of the world in general, and of the church in particular, furnishes illustrations.—And serve me in this place.—The redeeming work of Christ imposes solemn obligations on the redeemed to serve him; Luk_1:74-75. (Starke).
On Act_7:2-8. Abraham, the father of all them that believe, a bright example for all believing pilgrims of God. His history illustrates, I. The sacrifices and trials of faith; II. The patience and obedience of faith; III. The reward and blessing of faith.—Abraham’s pilgrimage: I. The difficulties encountered by that pilgrim in his path; II. The good staff which supported him; III. The happy close of his pilgrimage.
Act_7:9. And the patriarchs, moved with envy.—Godliness is always followed by the hatred and envy of the world, 2Ti_3:12. “A man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Mat_10:32. Brothers are of one blood, but seldom of one mind. (Starke).
Act_7:10. Gave him favor and wisdom.—It is only after grace, [χάριν, see the Exeget. note on Act_7:9-13, above], and through grace, that true wisdom is given. (Apost. Past.).
Act_7:11. Now there came a dearth.—Where Jesus, the true Joseph, does not dwell, a famine of the true bread [Amo_8:11] must necessarily prevail, since he alone is the bread of life, Joh_6:48-51. (Quesn.).—And our fathers found no sustenance.—The famine was also felt by Abraham’s family. Godliness does not exempt men from feeling the effects of national afflictions and other temporal calamities; but the issue of the trials of the godly is different from that of the plagues of the ungodly; Rom_8:28. (Apost. Past.).
Act_7:13. And at the second time Joseph was made known.—Joseph did not at once make himself known to his brethren, at the very first visit. We must learn to wait, if we desire to experience the grace of God, Psa_130:5-6. God often permits our distress to reach the highest point, in order that he may reveal himself the more gloriously, when he grants relief. (Starke). O that the Jews, of whom so many did not know Jesus, their brother after the flesh, when he first appeared, would now, in these last times, learn to know him! (ib.).
Act_7:16. Laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought.—It is not a slight exhibition of divine grace, when the remains of an individual are deposited near those of the fathers, and at a place where the name of God is honored, and the visible church exists. (Starke).
On Act_7:9-16. Joseph, a type of Jesus: I. In his state of humiliation; each, beloved of his father, but mocked and hated by his brethren; each, conscious, in the earliest years, of his future eminence, but conducted through sufferings to honor; each, hated by his kindred, sold into the hands of sinners, falsely accused, unjustly condemned. II. In his state of exaltation; Jesus, like Joseph, crowned with honor, after shame and sufferings; appointed as the ruler and deliverer of a famishing people; recognized with terror by those who had formerly rejected and persecuted him; showing grace and mercy to those who had done evil unto him.
Footnotes:
[1]Act_7:1. ἄρα [of text. rec.] after εἰ is wanting in A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and some minuscule mss., and has on this account been cancelled by Lach.; but it is found in D. E. H., and the fathers; it could more easily have been dropped as superfluous, than have been inserted as a correction. [Retained by Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
[2]Act_7:3. The article τήν before γῆν, which is wanting in the text. rec., is so well attested, that its genuineness cannot be doubted. [Found in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin.; omitted in H., but retained by later editors generally.—Tr.]
[3]Act_7:5. δοῦναι αὐτῷ is better attested [by A. B. C. D. E. H.] than αὐτῷ δοῦναι [of the text. rec. which reading is supported only by a few minuscule manuscripts. Lach., Tisch., and Alf. read δοῦναι αὐ.—Cod. Sin. exhibits the following: επηγ. δουναι αυτην εις κατασχ. αυτω.—Tr.]
[4]Act_7:11. Griesbach and Lachmann, following the authority of A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and some ancient versions [Syr. Vulg. etc.] read τὴν Αἴγυπτον; other MSS. [E. H.], and some versions, have τὴν γῆν Αἰγύπτου; γῆν could have more easily been dropped by copyists, than have been inserted. [γῆν retained by Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
[5]Act_7:12. The reading εἰς Αἴγυπτον is far better attested than ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, which is a correction to suit ὄντα. [ἐν A. of text. rec. in D. H.; είς A. in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. and adopted by Lach. Tisch. and Alf.—Tr.]
[6]Act_7:15. καὶ κατέβη is a better reading than κατέβη δέ; D., and some versions, exhibit no conjunction at all, and Bornemann and Meyer regard this as the original form of the text; this construction, however, would connect κατέβη with ἐν ψυχ. ἑβδ. πέντε of Act_7:14. [καὶ κατ. in A. C. E. Cod. Sin. and adopted by Lach. Tisch. Alf.—Tr.] In the same verse, Tischendorf cancels εὶς Αἵγυπτον, without sufficient reason, and in opposition to all the authorities. [Lach. retains this reading as genuine; Alford inserts it in the text, but in brackets. Cod. Sin. reads εἰς Αἴγ.—Tr.]
[7]Act_7:16. a. ὅ [in H. before ὠνήσ. and adopted in the text. rec. “not recognizing the attraction” (Meyer). Tr.], is plainly a correction; the reading ῷ̓ [in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin., and adopted by the recent editors] is sufficiently attested, both critically and grammatically.
[8]Act_7:16. b. τοῦ Συχέμ [of text. rec.] is, doubtless, the original reading; for both ἐν Σ. in B. C. and some versions, and τοῦ ἐν Σ. in A. E. and other authorities, are evidently corrections, suggested by the opinion that this name here [as well as in the beginning of the same verse (Meyer)], indicated a place and not a person. [Lachm. reads τοῦ ἐν; Tisch. and Alf. with D. H. τοῦ Σ. as text. rec.—Cod. Sin. reads ἐν Συχ., before which a later band (C) inserted τοῦ.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 when his father was dead, he removed into this…
when his father was dead, he removed into this land--Though Abraham was in Canaan before Terah's death, his settlement in it as the land of promise is here said to be after it, as being in no way dependent on the family movement, but a transaction purely between Jehovah and Abraham himself.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 2. Stephen’s Defence and Martyrdom, Act_7:1-60.
2. Stephen’s Defence and Martyrdom, Act_7:1-60.
1. These things so?—The high priest Theophilus utters not the word guilty to this prisoner with the angel-like face.
Read full note →
3. Stephen’s Funeral—Dispersion of Jerusalem Church, Act_7:1-4.
1. And (rather, but)
Saul—A transitional sentence. The same Saul, the indorser of the completed martyrdom, is leader of the coming persecution.
At that time—Literally, and doubtless truly, on that day. The martyrdom was the first act of the persecution.
Church… at Jerusalem—First mention of a city Christian Church; designating the organic body of all the congregation; a spiritual republic. The word Church (εκκλησια) is used in the New Testament to denote, (1) The whole body of believers, (Mat_16:18; 1Co_10:32; Gal_1:13; Eph_1:22; Eph_3:10; Eph_5:23-24; Eph_5:27; Eph_5:29; Eph_5:32; Php_3:6; 1Ti_3:15, etc.;) (2) A part of this whole, a particular congregation, as that at Jerusalem, or at Antioch, or at Rome, (1Co_11:18; 1Co_14:19; 1Co_14:33.) (Shaff., Apost. History.)
All—The entire Jerusalem Church, with an exception soon to be noted.
Scattered abroad—That this dispersion was truly total (with the apostolic exception soon to be considered) is abundantly evident in spite of the unauthorized doubt of most commentators. Luke tells us that all the Church was scattered— scattered abroad into different countries; scattered by a most thorough persecution, ransacking every house, and sparing no class or character. (Act_7:3.) So far as Saul’s keen eye could detect, not a Christian was left in Jerusalem. And it was because he was well satisfied that his work was thoroughly done in Jerusalem that he extended it to Damascus. And this terrible inquisition, as Mr. Lewin calculates, lasted a full six months.
Except—And surely where Luke states explicitly the exception, for himself all other exceptions are excluded.
Except the apostles—Why the apostolic twelve remained after the disappearance of the Church from Jerusalem, and how they remained safely, are two very interesting questions, treated scarce satisfactorily to our own mind by the body of commentators. First, the apostles remained, beyond all question, from some known imperative duty, such as an extension of the injunction in Act_1:4, would impose. Now a very early tradition reaches us, through different independent channels, affirming that that injunction upon the apostles to remain in Jerusalem was extended to twelve years. Thus Eusebius tells us that Apollonius, a writer of the second century, records that “It was handed down by tradition that our Saviour commanded his disciples not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years.” In an apocryphal work, the “Preaching of Peter,” it is said, “The Lord said to his apostles, If any one therefore of Israel repent, and through my name be willing to believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him. After twelve years go ye out into the world, lest any say, We have not heard.” This tradition so accords with the fact by Luke here stated, with our Lord’s command. (Act_1:4,) with the great rule obeyed even by Paul, “the Jew first, then also the Gentile,” that it may safely be accepted as an aid in solving the question of the apostles braving the danger of this terrible moment. And all this goes far to answer the second question. If the great Head of the Church required the presence of the twelve at Jerusalem, He provided for their safety. Not a hair of their head should perish if he needed their survival. Some powerful or skilful concealers, whose conscience was Christian, but whose courage (like that of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) dared not assume the Christian profession, might, with an inconsistent bravery, venture to cover and protect them from the searching eye of Saul himself, and leave the lion’s whelp bereaved of his prey. Many a lurking place those turbulent times had provided, such as the cells subterranean of the spacious tombs, enabling the apostles to anticipate the Church of the Catacombs. None the less were they the enthroned viceroys of the Great King, (Mat_19:28,) and none the less would they hold communion with and supervision over the scattered missionaries who were spreading the Gospel abroad. When Philip’s success in Samaria reaches their ears it is as an organic body that they delegate two of their college to supervise the new field. Yet their home is still Jerusalem; and in confining their mission mainly to Jews, they hold themselves as fulfilling the true nature of the Lord’s command. We very decidedly reject the theory of Baumgarten, that the twelve themselves were, as Jews, thrown into the background by the call of Paul, as being a sort of failure. Here in Jerusalem, and after their own missionary dispersion, they were life-long heads of the universal Church, with but one additional colleague, (Paul,) and with no successor.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 1. Then said the high priest, Are these things…
1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so?] Read, And the high priest said, &c. Thus he called upon Stephen to answer the charges laid against him.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 (1) Then said the high priest, Are these things…
VII.
(1) Then said the high priest, Are these things so?—The question was analogous to that put to our Lord. The accused was called on to plead guilty or not guilty, and had then an opportunity for his defence. On that defence we now enter.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 And the high priest said for then said the…
And the high priest said for then said the high priest, A.V. The high priest spoke as president of the Sanhedrim. (see Act_9:1 and Mat_26:62) Theophilus the son of Annas or his brother Jonathan is probably meant.
Vers. 1-60. The first martyrdom.
Read full note →
When we look at the Lord Jesus as our Exemplar, though we are conscious that all his excellences of life and character were strictly human, and within the range of those human faculties which we possess in common with our Lord, yet are we also conscious that the transcendent perfection of his human life is what we can never reach. Our Lord"s goodness was the goodness of man, and yet it is a goodness that we never can attain to. Where his feet stood firm, our feet will slip. Where his love triumphed, ours breaks down. Where his will moved on undaunted in obedience to his Father"s will, ours faints and halts and stumbles to its fall. The temptations that he crushed, crush us; where his spirit was clear as sunlight, ours is clouded and mixed. Where he soars in glory, we are heavy with sleep; and where he wrestles in an agony of prayer, we fall asleep for sorrow. His courage, his faith, his humility, his meekness, his constancy, his patience, his firmness, his love, his zeal, his self-consecration to God, his loving obedience, his transparent truth and purity, we see them, we look upon them with adoring wonder, but when we try to imitate them, it is like trying to climb up to the stars; do what we will they are at an immeasurable distance above us, inaccessible and unapproachable. It is, therefore, a great help and encouragement to us that, besides the infinite perfection of Christ"s human nature, we have other examples of saintly men set before us in the Word of God, which we may hope to follow more closely, treading even in their very steps. The apostle, the evangelist, the martyr, the holy woman, the faithful disciple, all stand out before us on the pages of Scripture, and we ask ourselves why should not we be like them, seeing we have the same Holy Spirit which dwelt in them to sanctify us also. The chapter before us invites us to study the character of a true martyr, as exemplified in St. Stephen. The model martyr thus is
I A WISE MAN AND ONE OF GOOD REPORT. Not an empty fanatic catching up every folly that is started, and carried away by every blast of doctrine; but a man of solid and approved wisdom, discerning things that differ, holding fast that which is good, and rejecting the pernicious error though it be the fashion of the day; one whose steady and quiet walk in the paths of godliness has earned him a good report among his neighbors. He is well spoken of because he does good quietly, and seeks not the praise of men. He is of good report because he is never hurried, into ill-advised action under the influences of temper or self-will, or the contagion of example, or any corrupt or selfish motive, but is known constantly to do the thing that is right.
II HE IS ALSO A MAN OF HIGH SPIRITUAL ATTAINMENT. He is not only wise and upright in all his dealings with men, has not only wisdom and discretion in the affairs of this life, but, being filled with the Holy Spirit of God, he has all spiritual wisdom likewise. His enlightened reason and his elevated affections soar above the world, and are deeply engaged in the things of God and the affairs of the kingdom of Christ. lie lives a life of faith in the Son of God, who loved him and gave himself for him.
III HIS MARTYR"S SPIRIT DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO LEAD A LIFE OF EASE AND INDOLENCE. He is ready at the call of the Church to undertake any office or work, however burdensome or responsible, for the good of the whole body and the comfort of the brethren. He does not seek dignity, or emolument, or the praise of men, as the price of his labor, but simply gives himself as Christ"s servant to work for Christ and for Christ"s people. Impartial, fair, equal, and kind in his administration, he soothes irritation, allays jealousy, and promotes peace and love.
IV HIS SPIRIT KINDLES WITH HIS WORK. Being placed on a higher platform, he sees more of the spiritual wants of men around him. Having received higher gifts, he looks for wider opportunities of exercising them. Every soul won to Christ is as fuel to the flame of his love. Every victory over Satan stirs him up to war more resolutely as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. Failures do not daunt him, and success cheers him on. Nothing seems impossible with Christ on his side. Everything must be attempted which may snatch the prey from the destroyer and enlarge the kingdom of light.
V BUT SOON THE RISING OPPOSITION OF THE ADVERSARIES OF CHRIST BARS HIS ONWARD PROGRESS. The wisdom of the world crosses swords with the wisdom of the spirit. Formalism, Pharisaism, priestcraft, superstition, self-righteousness, self-importance, ignorance, combine to resist the gracious teaching which would strip men of selfishness to clothe them with Christ. At first it is argument against argument and reasoning against reasoning. But when the sword of the Spirit begins to cut through the shield of carnal disputation, and the sword of the worldly logic becomes blunted against the martyr"s shield, and the Word of truth becomes too strong for the lying lips to answer, then begins a new form of contest. The defeated disputant throws aside his reasonings and his cavillings, and takes up the weapons of force and fraud. Prison and rack, fire and faggot, the wild beast and the sword, shall answer the arguments which were too strong for the reasoner. And how then will the martyr act? Will he be silenced and dismayed, or will he stand to his truth and die? He gathers up his courage, he looks up to God, he confronts his accusers, he lifts up his calm voice, and his speech is as the song of the dying swan. For
VI IN THAT HOUR OF DANGER AND TRIAL HIS CLEAN AND UNTROUBLED MEMORY GATHERS UP THE TESTIMONIES TO THE TRUTH OF HIS DOCTRINE WHICH ARE SCATTERED ON THE PAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. Has he preached Jesus Christ whom they denied? Did not their fathers deny Moses their lawgiver and deliverer from Egypt? Had he said that the majestic presence of the living God was not confined to the walls of temples made with hands? Did not Isaiah say the same? Had he denounced the vanity of sacrifices and offerings when offered by uncircumcised hearts and unclean hands? Had not their prophets done so likewise? He could not retract what he had spoken according to the oracles of God. He had spoken the truth, and by the truth he would stand. But were they there to judge him? Nay, but he would judge them. They had, indeed, received the Law, but they had broken it. The Holy Ghost had spoken to them, but they had resisted him. God"s Christ had come to save them, and they had betrayed and crucified him. Let them fill up the measure of their fathers; he was ready to receive death at their hands.
VII And then comes THE CLOSING SCENE. The faith as firm as a rock with the waves dashing upon it; the vision of invisible glories swallowing up all things in its brightness; the rapturous confession of Jesus Christ; the calm committal of his spirit to his safe keeping; the free forgiveness of his cruel murderers; the devout prayer of his parting breath; the peaceful death like an infant"s sleep; earth exchanged for heaven; and the martyrdom is complete. Complete, but not ended; for the witnessing voice is still ringing in our ears, and tells us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that we have life through his Name.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON. Vers. 1-7. Living faith.
Abraham is well called "the father of the faithful;" nowhere, in the Old Testament or in the Newt do we meet with any one whose life was such an illustration of implicit trust and holy confidence in God as was his. If faith be not merely the acceptance of a creed, or the utterance of sacred phrases, or the patronage of religious institutions; if it be a living power in the soul, it will manifest itself in
I CHEERFUL OBEDIENCE. (Vers. 2-4.) God bade Abraham leave his home and kindred, and he left them. He did not know whither he was, (Heb_11:8) but at the call of God he set forth promptly and willingly. So Matthew at the summons of the Savior. (Mat_9:9) So many thousands since his day; men and women who have heard the Master say, "Go," and they have gone, relinquishing all that is most cherished by the human heart. When God distinctly speaks to us, whatever he may bid us do, at whatever cost we may be required to obey, it behooves us to comply instantly and cheerfully.
II TRUST IN THE DARKNESS. (Ver. 5.) There is little faith in trusting God when everything is bright and hopeful. When we can see our way we can easily believe that it is the right one. Living faith shows itself when we do not see and yet believe". (Joh_20:29) Abraham was promised the land of Canaan for a possession," yet God "gave him none inheritance in it." "By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country" (Heb_11:9) This might have seemed to him as a "breach of promise" (Num_14:34) on the part of him who brought him out of Chaldaea, but he does not seem to have entertained any doubts or misgivings. Moreover, he believed that the land would be the property of his seed, though "as yet he had no child." By faith also he offered up Isaac," etc.. (Heb_11:17) Even in the thick darkness, when he could not see one step before him, Abraham trusted God. We profess to "walk by faith, not by sight", (2Co_5:7) but we are often fearful and doubtful when the way is clouded. But it is in the night of adversity that the star of faith must shine.
When we in darkness walk, Nor feel the heavenly flame, Then is the time to trust our God And rest upon his Name.
III CONFIDENCE IN THE FUTURE. (Vers. 6, 7.) God told his servant that, after being in bondage four hundred years, his seed should serve him in that country. It was a long time to look forward to. But the believing patriarch rested in God and was satisfied. We are impatient if our schemes do not come to maturity in a very brief time; we cry "failure" when only a small fraction of four centuries is passed without the redemption of our hope. We are bound to remember that we "have to do" with the Eternal One. We must wait his time, whether it be a day or a thousand years. C.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON Vers. 1-17. Stephen"s address: lessons of the patriarchal time.
Stephen"s view of Jesus and his mission rests, as every sound and thoughtful view must do, on the whole past history of the nation as a nation called to a spiritual destiny in the purposes of God.
I THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL IS ROOTED IN DIVINE REVELATION. Her God is the "God of glory." Power, holiness, perfect freedom, are included in this idea of the "glorious God." History is a Divine revelation, because it unfolds his counsel. In times of doubt the rulers of a nation, the guides of a community, should retrace the past to its beginnings, for a Divine idea lies at the basis of the national life and of every sacred institution.
1. The self-revelation of God to Abraham. Every new epoch in religious history starts with a fresh self-revelation of the spiritual nature and attributes of the glorious God. Amidst idolatrous scenes, the depths of Abraham"s spirit were stirred, and a light from above shone in. From idols, from Sabaean fetish-worship, he turned, "to serve the living and the true God.
2. The call to Abraham. He was to be the reformer of religion, the founder of a nation, whose life was to root itself in the acknowledgment of a living and a holy, spiritual Being as their God.
(1) Such calls involve ever sacrifice. Home must be quitted; its loved associations in fancy and feeling torn up; kindred left behind. It is the type of those moral changes and those consequent sacrifices which accompany God"s call to souls at every time.
(2) They involve the exercise of faith. Future good, in the shape of a new home and land, are promised to the patriarch, but the when and the how of their possession are left as we say to imagination; as the Bible says, to faith. He went out, not knowing whither he went." It has been said that life is an education by means of "illusions;" were it not better to say that life is an education by means of ideals? They are of their nature future, indefinite, must be left for time to unfold, as with the prospect of good vaguely shadowed forth before the mind of Abraham.
(3) They require unquestioning obedience. Such was that of Abraham. He had nothing to rely on but the promise of God; all else was against him. When he came to the "land," he found no inheritance in it, no resting-place for his foot. Spiritual trials consist in the perplexity of the will, caused by the contradiction between the unseen truth and the opposition of appearances to it. Facts stubbornly resist our ideals; the world, perhaps, scoffs at the ideals themselves. To "endure as seeing him who is invisible," is part of the certain calling, and at the same time the high joy, of the called soul. And faithfulness is certain to know repetitions and confirmations of the assuring promise.
(4) The light of promise ever leads, on. It is to be remarked that the Divine forecast of the future is not of unmixed brightness. A sorrow and a struggle for the young nation is to prepare for its enjoyment of freedom. It is to be cradled and rocked in slavery. By the stern and cruel knowledge in itself of the tyrant"s oppression, Israel will learn to fly to Jehovah its Deliverer, and find in his service emancipation from every secular yoke.
(5) Divine institutions confirm Divine promises. Israel had its peculiar sacramental institution of circumcision. A sacrament is a species of religious language, the more impressive because addressed to the eye than merely to the ear. In it an act of God and an act of man are expressed; surrender on the side of man, acceptance and blessing on the side of God. Thus the sacrament becomes the channel of tradition; the tribe and the nation have a common and visible bond of union. Such were the Divine beginnings of Israel"s life.
II THE STONY OF JOSEPH. His career was in many points typical of that of Jesus.
1. He was the object of envy and unnatural hatred on the part of his brethren. So was Jesus envied and hated by the rulers of the nation, and on the like grounds the manifest favor of God which was with him. Such is the law superior spiritual energy at first arouses opposition. (2Ti_3:12) And especially from those nearest of kin. (Mat_10:36) Such, too, was the experience of Jesus. Nothing is more painful to the heart than to see one, hitherto supposed an equal, rising to eminence above our heads. The best will suffer from jealousy; how much more those whose evil is thus set in the light of contrast, exposed and condemned!
2. But he enjoyed Divine compensations. "God was with him," "delivered him from all his troubles," imparted to him grace and wisdom in the presence of the earthly great. So was it with Jesus. Hate and envy may be defied by force or intellect; but better is it when the envious and hateful are themselves revealed in their hideousness by the bright shining of God"s grace upon the good man"s life.
3. Again, the wrath of men is often made the instrument of good to them. The force which would undermine is made to exalt. Joseph becomes prime minister to Pharaoh; the crucified Jesus is, through his cross, exalted to be Prince and. Savior.
4. The living soul will find an opportunity of overcoming evil with good. The famine in Canaan gave Joseph the opportunity of a glorious revenge. The account of his recognition of his brothers, and forgiveness of them, is most touching and rich in typical suggestiveness. Those who love allegories may find much food for fancy in the details. Those who prefer broad spiritual lessons may also find in the figure of Joseph the very ideal of the gentle side of Israel"s national character, which was fulfilled in the suffering Savior, who triumphs over his foes by the might of forgiving love.
5. The result of the chain of events. The settlement of Israel in Egypt. How strangely is the web of destiny spun! How deeply laid the train of causes and effects which result in great histories and revolutions! Any course of events is highly improbable beforehand, which after it has taken place unfolds a providential logic and profound design. So with Christianity Nothing can seem beforehand more improbable than the whole story of its foundation. At Athens the story of the crucified One was folly, and at Jerusalem a scandal. Yet in it lay hidden the wisdom and the power of God. Hatred to Joseph was the first moving spring of a long religious history and triumph Hatred to Jesus was now being proved the spring of his triumph and the mighty prevalence of his religion. God works through the evil passions of men as well as through the good; and all powers in rivalry with love must sooner or later be brought submissively to follow in the wake of her eternal progress of blessing. In humiliation and in exaltation Joseph presents a lively type of Jesus. And the Sanhedrim must have felt this as they listened to the old familiar story of the origin of the nation. They are face to face with the fact of a new origin. Will they learn the lesson of the past for the present? Do we learn the lessons of the past for our present? J.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1-53. Stephen"s address in the Sanhedrim.
The charge was blasphemy and revolution against consecrated authority. The answer was, God by his Spirit has been preparing for this time. Jesus is the Messiah. As in former days our fathers resisted the Holy Ghost, so now this highest manifestation of his grace in "Jesus Christ." An appeal to repentance and faith, Notice
I THE TESTIMONY TO THE WORD OF GOD. Christianity is no novelty discarding the past. Yet not a mere development, but a new gift in Christ. A great lesson on the study of the Old Testament, which is too much neglected. A help to trace the line of the spiritual manifestations. A warning against unbelief. A declaration of the grace of God, apart from human merit.
II THE BOLDNESS OF THE INSPIRED PREACHER. Fearlessness of man. Courage of deep conviction. Freedom from Jewish prejudice. Gospel liberty not rationalistic license. Spiritual conception of God and his worship. Charge of the Jews.
III THE POSITION OF CHRISTIANITY plainly set forth as the final revelation, and the challenge founded upon it. Receive the gospel or you resist the Spirit. This position evidently rested on the person and work of Christ, "the righteous One," whose message was above that "ordained by angels". (see Heb 1:, Heb_1:2) The circumcision of the Old Testament was declared worthless in view of the new circumcision of the "heart and ears," otherwise the sign of the new covenant, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Although evidently broken off by the murderous riot which ensued, the address was advancing to an appeal to faith on the basis of the new outpouring of the Spirit: "Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation." A great example to us to lead men through conviction of sin to acceptance of grace through the sense of what they are to the hope of what they may be in Christ. R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER Vers. 1-53. The recital of a nation"s spiritual pedigree its leading suggestions.
Technically the description of a defense may very justly be applied to the long stretch of these verses. They no doubt do stand for Stephen"s formal defense. He has been very mildly challenged by the high priest to say whether the "things" laid to his charge "are so." And he loses not a minute in replying. He replies, however, in his own way. That way is somewhat indirect. His tone betrays some sense of his being in some sense also master of the situation. He tempts us much to feel that much may be read between the lines, and we soon come to convince ourselves that the real drift of the personal defense is laid on the lines of a national indictment and that national indictment very little else than the barest recital of the pedigree of the nation in question. Stephen does not make it too apparent at first any mere than once on a time Nathan did, when he appeared to condignly judge David but he puts before himself and hearers the nation of Israel as it now is, and takes in hand to say what it came from and along what way it has come to this present. The places of judge and judged almost seem turned, both in the matter and the manner of Stephen. It is very possible that (as Stephen never lived to put in writing nor to repeat what he now said) there is some disjointedness in the language as it is now before us, and some lacunoe, and (though many doubt the suggestion) that interruptions, especially just at the close, determined the form of some parts of Stephen"s strong accusation. On the other hand, we have to remember that probably nowhere do we read language fresher from the dictate of the Holy Spirit. The recital of the spiritual lineage of this nation reveals
I A SERIES OF PROVIDENTIAL INTERPOSITIONS OF THE MOST MARKED CHARACTER.
These occur in more shapes than one.
1. There is the originating sovereign choice and sovereign call of Abraham (ver. 2).
2. The express command to him whither he is to go and where awhile to dwell (ver. 3).
3. Express promises vouchsafed to him and his seed, and covenant, made with him (vers. 6-8).
4. An unfailing, providential guidance of him and his linear descendants, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph. This name Joseph does not fail to lead Stephen to recite
(1) the providence that wonderfully overruled the worst of the work of envy;
(2) the providence that exalted Joseph, an alien, to Egypt"s highest place;
(3) the providence that was aiming at and that did secure the more remote result of settling awhile the nation in Egypt.
5. The providential saving of the life of the infant Moses, educating of him, endowing him with a spirit of both goodness and power, preparing him well by chastening delay and discipline, and finally calling him to see and know and take up his mission, after an interval of forty years (vers. 23, 30, 35). The name of Moses, again, does not fail to lead Stephen to commemorate
(1) the chief features of his work, in leading the people of Israel out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, and in his own life"s remaining forty-years wanderings with those people in the wilderness;
(2) the distinct prophecy with which his lips were charged, relating to the Prophet," the Messiah, the late well-known Jesus (ver. 37);
(3) the typical "tabernacle in the wilderness," so carefully and in minute detail designed in heaven, yet so temporary in its use for the service of the wilderness and the early settlement under Joshua in "the possession of the Gentiles
6. By two hurried touches, the reason of which is scarcely far to find, Stephen implies rather than mentions the providence which raised up David to conceive and Solomon to execute the building of the temple; (Act_6:14; ver. 48) when, for whatever exact reason, the climax of the occasion is reached. The moment has come for the dropping of the mere recital of history, every step of which, however, was telling its own very plain and very significant tale. In words of flame and impassioned thrusts, the solemn, unanswerable, conscience-stinging charge is flung at the packed body of accusers and sympathizers. And the force came, not of bad spirit, but of the Spirit, the Spirit of truth and conviction, of light and life, and, when needs be, of "consuming fire." So far Stephen"s recital of the moral lineage of the people is crowded with the tokens of providence, Nay, it is one chain of tokens of Divine love and Divine care. But on reading again the recital we find
II A SERIES OF PERVERSE THWARTINGS AND "CONTRADICTIONS OF SINNERS," To us the things working in the mind of Stephen are not obscure, but even to those who heard him, light must have glimmered in before the final disclosure. When this came, no man doubted what it meant nor to what it was equivalent. Not exactly side by side, and not exactly paripassu with the originating, directing, overruling, and protecting "dispositions" (ver. 53) of Heaven, but certainly in many a most mournful and untoward conjuncture appeared the perverseness of human insubjection and ingratitude and presumptuous opposition. The worst growths of ingratitude sprang up where had fallen the richest showers of heavenly grace. The worst forms of resistance assorted themselves in front of the kindest and most distinguished of heavenly leading. And it had been thus too systematically. It had been so once and again, and the indications were to the effect that," So my people love to have it. " Thus the whole length of exceptional and most beneficent grace was disfigured by the intrusion of surprising ingratitude and rebellion; and of late, Stephen has to show, things have grown worse, nay, they are come to a climax. The seed of evil grew up into plain sight.
1. In those "patriarchs, moved with envy," who "sold Joseph into Egypt" (ver. 9).
2. In the two cases, that grew upon one another in degree of blindness, when Moses himself was so taken by surprise in that his own brethren did not perceive his mission, and that it was one for their benefit, at whatsoever risk to himself (vers. 25, 28, 35).
3. In the rebellion and fickleness of Israel under "Mount Sina," and their patent idolatry there, a career of crime, Stephen implies, which begun there never got purged out of their system, but brought on the crushing punishment of the Captivity. This was a marvelous stroke of Stephen"s just rhetoric suggestion of the Spirit"s light and force to run up in the compass of one sentence that initial act of idolatry into the flourishing continuation of it which both courted and caused the captivity of ever-memorable shame (vers. 38-43).
4. But never so plainly, never so terribly as now; the present generation complete the circle of the evil works of their fathers. They "resist the Holy Ghost;" they are "the betrayers and murderers" of him for prophesying of whom men were both persecuted and slain by their fathers; they have not honored their own "Law," so boasted in, in the only acceptable way of honoring it, viz. in the "keeping" of it; and they have branded themselves with the names "stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in" their very "ears." These are the formidable interruptions to the purity, honor, nobility of their lineage. They are stains on their escutcheons ineffaceable in themselves. But even all this is as nothing, for they now drag their glory in the dust, and are for flinging it away for ever. The recital shows
III A SERIES OF SUGGESTIVE RETRIBUTIONS. This aspect of his subject, it may be supposed, Stephen purposed to keep in some check for a time. Yet:
1. It is implied, for those who certainly well knew all the history of Joseph and his brethren, in the allusion to the exaltation of Joseph, and his brethren"s repairing to him for corn, and finally his father and family becoming as it were his permanent guests (vers. 9-14).
2. It is again implied (see the manifest hint of some kind of ver. 35) in the justifying of Moses" unconscious taking up of his role as reformer and deliverer of his brethren (vers. 24-26), and in the parallel condemnation of those whose blindness, not seeing it, led them to say tauntingly, "Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?
3. It is most emphatically stated of the idolatrous Israelites. God turned, and gave them up" (ver. 42). And the fact of this being able to be viewed either as one long-continued course of retribution or retribution frequently repeated shows that, as Stephen approaches the end of his speech, he is preparing to give greater prominence to this matter. So far, then, the striking moral features of this history consist of unparalleled opportunity, reckless disregard of it and Heaven"s own distinctest and most impressive kind of warnings. But the whole case of Stephen is not over till it is observed how he either purposely exhibits or is made the means of exhibiting
IV THE AIM, THE USE, THE LESSONS OF THAT FAMILY LINEAGE, MADE TO BE ILLUSTRIOUS, ALL MISERABLY FORFEITED, AT LEAST FOR THE FAMILY ITSELF. For:
1. The aim and use of all, if they had not been absolutely lost, would have obviated the necessity of any defense at all on the part of Stephen; and in particular would have rendered unnecessary his allusion to David, to Solomon, and to the nature of the dwelling-place of the "Most High," as also his quotation of the prophet"s rapt, inspired, and foreseeing language (vers. 46-50). It seems evident that Stephen was far from being supremely anxious on the subject of his own personal defense; he is bent on something fir beyond and above this. But so far as he was at all anxious about it, it was here that the point of it lay. Whatever he had said about "this place," and about the customs of Moses," and about "this Jesus of Nazareth," who had power to "destroy this temple and build it up in three days," and who was the end and aim and substance of all "the Law and the prophets," was near to finding its solution, for those who had "ears to hear," at the point at which Stephen is found quoting that prophet (ver. 50). But all was lost on those whose nation had been educating fourteen hundred years if haply they might see this very thing and not lose it.
2. The lessons of a moral and individual nature are now to be yet more shown spilled on the ground. Yes, spilled, as Stephen"s blood itself was spilled. Instead of having learnt or now learning, they are "cut to the heart;" they gnash with their teeth; they cry out with a loud voice; they stop their ears; they run upon Stephen with one accord; they cast him out of the city; they stone him. It was the evening of hope for many of that audience when Stephen began to speak. When he has ended evening has declined into a mournful, dark, despairful night. A hundred times they have been warned in their own family history, and their fathers cry to them from the very tombs. But what can they hear who "stop their ears "? And what can any hear who do likewise? B.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 9, 16, 20, 23, 30, 37, 38, 39, 47, 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
Act_7:1-53
Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
Read full note →
The high priest and his question
This functionary was probably Theophilus, son-in-law of Caiaphas. The ex-officio president of the council called for the defence against the charge of blasphemy (Act_6:13-14). The question, equivalent to guilty or not guilty, appears to have been put with great mildness, possibly under the influence of the angel-like aspect. (Bp. Jacobson.)
And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken.--
Stephens defence
In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind that a threefold element runs through it.
I. He shows apologetically that so far from dishonouring Moses or God, he believes and holds in mind Gods dealings with Abraham and Moses, and grounds upon them his preaching; that so far from dishonouring the temple, he bears in mind its history and the sayings of the prophets respecting it; and he is proceeding, when interrupted by their murmurs or inattention, he bursts forth into a holy vehemence of invective against their rejection of God.
II. But simultaneously and parallel with this he also proceeds didactically, showing them that a future prophet was pointed out by Moses as the final lawgiver of Gods people--that the Most High had revealed His spiritual and heavenly nature by the prophets, and did not dwell in temples made with hands.
III. Even more remarkably does the polemic element run through the speech. It is not I, but you, who from the first times till now have rejected and spoken against God. And this element just appearing (Act_7:9), and again more plainly (Act_7:25-28), and again more pointedly still in Act_7:35, becomes dominant in Act_7:39-44, and finally prevails to the exclusion of the others in Act_7:51-53. (Dean Alford.)
Stephens defence
I. The source of his argument. The sacred history of the Jews which accusers and accused alike revered. In doing this he secured their attention by giving them to understand--
1. That his faith in that history was as strong as theirs.
2. That he was thoroughly conversant with that history.
II. Its point--that all Gods dealings with His people pointed to those very changes which he was accused of advocating. This position he makes good by showing--
1. That the external condition of the Church had undergone repeated changes. There was a change under
(1) Abraham (Act_7:2-8).
(2) Joseph (Act_7:9-16).
(3) Moses (Act_7:17-44).
(4) David (Act_7:45-46).
2. That the present external state of the Church had no existence before Solomon; and that even this was intended from the beginning to be temporary (Act_7:47-50).
III. Its application (Act_7:51-53). Mark--
1. The vile character he gives them.
(1) Stiffnecked--contumacious, rebellious.
(2) Uncircumcised--unsacred, impure.
2. The crimes he charges upon them--
(1) Resistance to the Holy Ghost.
(2) An hereditary persecuting spirit.
(3) The betrayal and murder of the Son of God. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The defence of Stephen
1. How does this speech happen to be here? It would be easy for the memory to carry a sentence or two; but who could record so long and highly-informed a speech? There was a young man listening with no friendly ear. His name was Saul. It is supposed that he related it to Luke. It is not a correct report. No man can report chain lightning. You may catch a little here and there, but the elements that lifted it up into historic importance, it was not in the power of memory to carry. You must not therefore hold Stephen responsible for this speech; they did not give him an opportunity of revising it. There is no statement here made that is not spiritually true, and yet there are a few sentences that may be challenged on some technical ground. Some persons imagine that they are inspired when they are only technical. They forget that you may not have a single text in support of what you are stating, and yet may have the whole Bible in defence of it. The Bible is not a text, it is a tone; it is not a piece of technical evidence, it is an inspiration.
2. The man who reported this speech to Luke made it the basis and the model of his own immortal apologies. Truly we sometimes borrow from unacknowledged sources, and are sometimes indebted to unknown influences for some of our best inspirations. That a man appointed with six others to serve tables should have become the first Christian martyr apologist, and should have given the model for the greatest speeches ever delivered by man, is surely a very miracle of Providence! How little Stephen knew what he was doing. Who really knows the issue and full effect of any action or speech? Life is not marked off in so many inches and done with; it may be the beginning of endless other acts nobler than itself.
I. It is fair criticism to infer the man from the speech. What kind of man was Stephen, judged by his speech? He was--
1. A man well versed in the Scriptures. From beginning to end his speech is scriptural; quotation follows quotation like shocks of thunder. Stephen was a man who had read his Bible; therein he separates himself from the most of modern people. I cannot call to mind one who ever read the Bible and disbelieved it. We all know many who abuse the Bible who have never read it. Not that such persons have not read parts of the Bible, which being perused without understanding are misquoted. Who really knows the Bible by heart? Some of us boast that we can recite five plays of Shakespeare. Who can recite the Book of Psalms? You call upon your little children to recite nonsense verses, which is well enough now and then; but which of your children can recite a chapter of St. John? Suppose some of us were called upon at a moments notice to recite six verses of Romans? Only the men who know the Bible should quote it. Only those who are steeped in the Scriptures should undertake to express any opinion about it. This is the law in all other criticism, and in common justice it ought to be the law in relation to the inspired revelation of God.
2. A man who took a broad and practical view of history. It is as difficult to find a man who has read history as to find a man who has read the Bible. A man does not know history because he can repeat all the kings of England from the Conquest. You do not learn history from the books. From the books you learn the facts; but having ascertained the facts, you must make history. The novelist is a better historian than the mere annalist, because history is an atmosphere. It is not only a panorama of passing incidents; it is a spirit in which such men as Stephen lived. He was a member of a great and noble household, a link in a far-stretching chain, an element in a great composition. Why should we live the shallow life of men who have no history behind them? We are encompassed by a great cloud of witnesses. We have no right to disennoble ourselves and commit an act of dismembership which separates us from the agony, the responsibility, and the destiny of the race. In Christ we have all to be one.
3. A man who was forced into action by his deep convictions. That is a word which, has somehow slipped out of our vocabulary, because it has slipped out of our life. Who now has any convictions? Life is now a game, a series of expedients, a succession of experiments. It is not an embodied and sacrificial conviction. In those days men spoke because they believed. They had no necessity to get up a speech, to arrange it in words that would offend and be recollected by nobody. Without faith we cannot have eloquence. It is not enough to have information. If you believe Christianity, you will not need an exhortation to speak it. Speech about Christianity, where it is known and loved, is the best necessity of this life. The fire burns, the heart muses, and the tongue speaks; hence in the fifty-first verse yon find that Stephen was a man whose information burned into religious earnestness. Having made his quotation he turned round as preachers dare not turn round now. It was an offensive speech, and it would be unpardonable now. Why? Because it was truth made pointed, and that no man will ever endure. The man who would listen all day with delight to an eloquent malediction upon the depravity of the whole world would leave the church if you told him he was a drunkard or a thief. We live in generalities. So preaching is now dying, or it is becoming a trick in, eloquence, or it is offering a grand opportunity for saying nothing about nothing. It used to turn the world upside down.
II. Let us turn from the man to the speech.
1. Its literary form. We need no book of rhetoric beyond this great apology. Called upon, he addresses his auditors with courtesy as Men, brethren, and fathers. He begins calmly, with the serenity of conscious power. He quotes from undisputed authority. Every step he takes is a step in advance. There is not in all his narration one circular movement. Having accumulated his facts and put them in the most vivid manner, he suddenly, like the out-bursting of a volcano, applies the subject, saying, Ye stiff-necked, etc. This is the law of argumentative progress. Begin courteously, and beg the confidence and respectful attention of your hearers; but your speech will be their responsibility. They will not be the same at the end of the speech a they were at the beginning. A preacher may begin as courteously as he pleases, but having shown what God is and has done, and wants to be done, his conclusion should be a judgment as well as a gospel.
2. Its probable source. How did Stephen know all about the case? Suppose that Stephen was the second disciple who, on the road to Emmaus, heard Christ expound in all Scripture the things concerning himself. What if Saul reported Stephen, and Stephen reported Christ, and so the great gospel goes on from man to man, from tongue to tongue, till the last man hears it, and his heart burns within him!
3. Its main purpose--to disclose the method of Divine revelation and providence. Let us see whether what is related here agrees with our own observation and experience.
(1) God has from the beginning made Himself known to individuals. Stephen relates the great names of history. Some names are as mountains on the landscape. We start our journeys from them, we reckon our distances by them, we measure our progress according to their height. God does not reveal Himself to crowds. It is not only in theology, but in science, politics, commerce, literature, family life, that God speaks to the individual and entrusts him with some great gospel or spiritual mystery. Why talk about election as if it were exclusively a religious word? How is it that one man in the family has all the sense? How is it that one man is a poet and another a mathematician? How is it that one boy can never be got to stay at home and his own brother can never be got to leave home? How is it that one man speaks out the word that expresses the inarticulate thought of a generation, though all other men would have been wise enough to discover it?
(2) God has constantly come along the line of surprise. Revelation has never been a commonplace. Wherever God has revealed Himself Me has surprised the person on whom the light has fallen. The power of surprise is one of the greatest powers at the disposal of any teacher. How to put the old as if it were the new! How to set fire to common sense so that it shall burn up into genius! How to reveal to a man his bigger and better self! How has God proceeded according to the historical narration of Stephen? To Abram he said, Get thee out from thy country and from thy kindred. We cannot conceive the shock of surprise with which these words would be received. Travelling then was not what travelling is now. No man could receive a call of that kind as a mere commonplace! Called to give up a reality in the hope of realising a dream! Josephs life was a surprise--a greater surprise to himself than to anybody. How was it that he always had the key of the gate? Why did men turn to him? How was it that he only could tell the meaning of the kings dream? Then pass on to Moses. A bush flamed at the mountain base, and a voice said to the wanderer, Stop! Nothing but fire can stop some men! There are those to whom the dew is a gospel, there are others who require the very fire that lights the eternal throne to stop them and rouse their full attention. God knows what kind of ministry you need, so He has set in His Church a thousand ministries. It is not for us to compare the one with the other, but to see in such a distribution of power Gods purpose to touch every creature in the whole world.
(3) God has all the time been over-ruling improbabilities and disasters. We should say that when God has called a man to service the road would be wide, clear of all obstructions, filled with sunshine, lined with flowers, that the man leaning on Gods arm will be accompanied by the singing of birds and of angels. Nothing of the kind is true to fact. Stephen recognises this in very distinct terms. God said that Abrams seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and evil entreat them four hundred years! In the face of such an arrangement can there be an Almighty providence? Yes. And Joseph was sold into Egypt. God-forsaken we should say, looking at the outside only. And there were those who evilly entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children to the end they might not live. Moses himself was cast out. Stephen does not cover these things up or make less of them. Nay, he masses them into great black groups, and says--Still the great thought went on and on! There is the majesty of the Divine Providence. Its movement is not lost in pits, and caves, and wildernesses, and rivers, and seas. The disasters are many, the sufferings are severe, the disappointments are innumerable and unendurable; still the thought goes on. Judge nothing before the time. So it is with our own life.
Conclusion: Mark how exactly this whole history of Stephens corresponds with Christs method of revelation and providence.
1. Did not Christ reveal Himself to individuals? Did He not say to the Abram of His time, Follow Me?
2. Did He not also use the power of surprise? When was He ever received into any town as an ordinary visitor? Who did not wait for Him to speak and look, and act? Who was not impatient with all the multitude lest they should interrupt any sentence of this marvellous eloquence?
3. Did He not also take His Church through improbabilities, disasters, and dark places? Has not His Church been evil entreated? Have not our Christian fathers been cast out? Have we not also our heroes, and sufferers, and martyrs, and crowned ones? Was not Christ always master of the occasion? Without a place whereon to lay His head, He was still the Lord. We remember our disasters; but the Church is the Lambs Bride, and He will marry her at the altar of the universe! (J. Parker, D. D.)
St. Stephens defence
How was Stephens speech preserved? The notaries, shorthand writers, and clerks attendant upon a Roman court were accessible to the gifts of the richer Christians when they wished to obtain a correct narrative of a martyrs last trial. Secret Christians among the officials also effected something, and there were numerous other methods by which the Roman judicial records became the property of the Church. Probably St. Paul gave his disciple, St. Luke, report of what Stephen said on this occasion.
I. The defence of St. Stephen was a speech delivered by a Jew, and addressed to a Jewish audience. Orientals argued then, and argue still, not according to the rules of logic taught by Aristotle, nor by the methods of eloquence derived from the traditions of Cicero and Quinctilian, but by methods and rules essentially different. What would satisfy Westerns would seem to them utterly worthless, just as an argument which now seems pointless appeared to them absolutely conclusive. Parallels, analogies, parables, mystical interpretations were then favourite methods of argument. St. Stephen was accused of irreverence towards Moses, and hostility towards the temple, and towards all the Jewish institutions. He begins his address to the Sanhedrin at the earliest period of their national history, and shows how the chosen people had passed through many changes and developments without interfering with their essential identity. There was a chosen people before the customs introduced by Moses. There may therefore be a chosen people still when these customs cease, having fulfilled their purpose. He was accused also of speaking blasphemous words against the national sanctuary. His argument now takes a different turn, and runs thus: This building is now the centre of Jewish thoughts and affections. But it is a mere modern thing as compared with the original choice and promise of God. Even when it was built, and in all its original glory, its temporal character was clearly recognised by Isaiah (Isa_66:1-2). The same truth had been anticipated by Solomon (1Ki_8:27). Then there occurs a break in St. Stephens address. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of his doctrines. Isaiahs opinion carried no weight with them as contrasted with the institutions of Moses; and so, borne along by the force of his oratory, Stephen finished with that vigorous denunciation which led to his death (verses 51-53).
II. What a lesson Stephens speech has for the Church of every age! His forecast swept away at once all the privileges and profits connected with the religious position of Jerusalem, and thus destroyed the political prospects of the Jewish people. Men never listen patiently when their pockets are being touched, their dearest hopes annihilated. Take the political world alone. We.now look back and view with horror the deeds wrought in the name of authority, and in opposition to the principles of change and innovation. We read the stories of Alva, and the massacres in the Netherlands, the bloody deeds of the seventeenth century in England and all over Europe, the miseries and bloodshed of the American War of Independence, the fierce opposition with which the spirit of liberty has been resisted throughout this century; and our sympathies are altogether ranged on the side of the sufferers--the losers and defeated, it may have been, for the time, but the triumphant in the long run. The true student, however, of history, or of human nature, will not content himself with any one-sided view, and he will have Some sympathy to spare for those who adopted the stern measures: He will not judge them too harshly. They reverenced the past as the Jews of Jerusalem did, and reverence is a feeling that is right and blessed. The opponents of political change are sometimes denounced in the fiercest language, as if they were morally wicked. The late Dr. Arnold seems a grievous offender in this respect. No one can read his charming biography by Dean Stanley without recognising how intolerant he was towards his political opponents; how blind he was to those good motives which inspire the timorous, the ignorant, and the aged, when brought face to face with changes which appear to them thickly charged with the most dangerous results. Charity towards opponents is sadly needed in the political as well as in the religious world. And as it has been in politics, so has it been in religion. Men reverence the past, and that reverence easily glides into an idolatry, blind to its defects and hostile to any improvement. It is in religion too as in politics; a thousand other interests--money, office, expectations, memories of the loved and lost--are bound up with religious forms, and then when the prophet arises with his Divine message, as Stephen arose before the Sanhedrin, the ancient proverb is fulfilled, the corruption of the best becomes the worst, the good motives mingle with the evil, and are used by the poor human heart to justify the hardest, most unchristian, deeds done in defence of what men believe to be the cause of truth and righteousness.
III. The mistakes and variations which occur in Stephens speech. They are mistakes such as a speaker, filled with his subject and speaking to an excited and hostile audience, might naturally make; mistakes such as truthful speakers every day make in their ordinary efforts. (G. T. Sokes, D. D.)
Stephens testimony
1. Mark the perfect man. That object is worthy of regard anywhere; but here it is in a position peculiarly fitted to display its grandeur. Everything about the faith of Christians is interesting; but the trial of their faith is found unto praise, etc. (1Pe_1:7). The flame may live through the day, but it is by night that it is seen. Mark the perfect man, but choose the time for marking him--towards the close: the end of that man is peace.
2. Stephen stands before the Sanhedrin, not to be tried but to be condemned. When he distributed alms his face was pleasant; but when he stands before his murderers it is like the face of an angel. The sun is most beautiful at its setting, and if dark clouds cluster round they serve to receive and reflect his light, and so to increase the loveliness of the departing moment.
2. The specific charge against Stephen was that he spoke blasphemous words, etc; but the first portion of his speech must have gone far to refute it, for in the spirit of a devout believer he traces the course of Hebrew history. This is no reviler of the temple and the law, a renegade Jew who abjures Moses. His elegant apologetic essay by itself would have pleased his judges, as the story of the ewe lamb did the guilty king, and perhaps they may have begun to think this man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
4. Stephen, I suppose, had a well-defined plan. He wished to win their attention and soften their hearts. When at last he saw the gates open he made a sudden rush, in the hope of taking the city by assault, and leading its defenders captive to Christ. And the plan was in the first instance successful. The Word proved quick and powerful. The sword ran into their joints and marrow. The immediate object is gained: there is conviction--they were cut to the heart. But for those who try to win souls, as for those who try to win fortunes, there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip. Conversion does not always follow conviction. When such a home thrust takes effect a great fire of anger is kindled which will either turn inward and consume sin, or outward to persecute the preacher. In this case anger went the wrong way.
5. As the fury of the persecutors increased, so did the ecstasy of the martyr. The blast of their wrath against him, like the wind against a kite, carried him higher toward heaven. He saw the glory of God and Jesus. The two lie close together, to Stephen they blended in one. If the glory of God were to appear without Jesus the spirit would fail. The Lamb is the light of heaven. An uproar ensued. The peace and triumph of the martyrs has always had an effect upon the persecutors. The drums were beaten to drown the last words of the Scottish covenanters. Argyles sleep on the night before his execution made his enemies blood run cold. (W. Arnot, D. D.)
The God of Glory.--
Stephens answers to the charge of blasphemy against God
There was good reason for commencing his speech in the name of God. He thus in opposition to the current slander that he blasphemed God not only testifies his deep respect for God, and gives to Him the honour which is His due; but he has a positive reason for asserting the glory of God. Here, as in the subsequent part of his speech, he keeps in view the unlimited greatness, authority and sovereignty of God, according to which God is bound to nothing and no one, and can manifest Himself to whom, and how, and when He pleases. The expression in connection with appeared brings to their remembrance the sublime and elevating glory in which the self-manifestations of God were wont to take place. (G. V. Lechler, D. D.)
Appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.--
The earliest appearance of God to Abraham
Of this particular appearance there is no account in Gen_11:31. But a Divine command, which had already been given at that time, is implied in Gen_15:7, and reference is made to this in Jos_24:2-3; Neh_9:7; Jdt_5:7-9. Philo and Josephus agree in representing the Patriarch as having been called twice, first from his kindred and country in Ur, secondly from his fathers house in Haran, Terah having accompanied him in the former migration, and being dead before the second. This is one of several instances in which New Testament supplies facts supplementary to Old Testament--e.g., the prophecy of Enoch (Jud_1:14); the names of the Egyptian magicians (2Ti_3:8); the hope that sustained Abraham in offering Isaac (Heb_11:19); the acknowledgment of Moses (Heb_12:21); the motive which strengthened him to leave the court of Pharaoh (Heb_11:24), and Egypt (Heb_11:27); and the prayer of Elijah (Jam_5:17). (Bp. Jacobsen.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v58 Chapter 16
Chapter 16
THE FIRST CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM.
Read full note →
Act_7:58-60; Act_8:1
THE apology of Stephen struck the keynote of Christian freedom, traced out the fair proportions of the Catholic Church, while the actual martyrdom of Stephen taught men that Christianity was not only the force which was to triumph, but the power in which they were to suffer, and bear, and die. Stephens career was a type of all martyr lives, and embraces every possible development through which Christs Church and His servants had afterwards to pass, - obscurity, fame, activity, death, fixing high the standard for all ages.
I. We have in this passage, telling the story of that martyrdom, a vast number of topics, which have formed the subject-matter of Christian thought since apostolic times. We have already remarked that the earliest quotation from the Acts of the Apostles connects itself with this scene of Stephens martyrdom. Let us see how this came about. One hundred and forty years later than Stephens death, towards the close of the second century, the Churches of Vienne and Lyons were sending an account of the terrible sufferings through which they had passed during a similar sudden outburst of the Celtic pagans of that district against the Christians. The aged Pothinus, a man whose life and ministry touched upon the apostolic age, was put to death, suffering violence very like that to which St. Stephen was subjected, for we are told expressly by the historian Eusebius that the mob in its violence flung missiles at him. "Those at a distance, whatsoever they had at hand, every one hurled at him, thinking it would be a great sin if they fell short in wanton abuse against him." The Church of Lyons, according to the loving usage of those early times, sent an account for all their trouble to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, that they might read it at the celebration of the Eucharist for their own comfort and edification. They entered into great details, showing how wonderfully the power of Gods grace was manifested, even in the weakest persons, sustaining their courage and enabling them to witness. The letter then goes on to note the marvellous humility of the sufferers. They would not allow any one to call them martyrs. That name was reserved to Jesus Christ, "the true and faithful Martyr," and to those who had been made perfect through death. Then, too, their charity was wonderful, and the Epistle, referring to this very incident, tells how they prayed "like Stephen, that perfect martyr, Lord, impute not this sin to them." The memory of St. Stephen served to nerve the earliest Gallic martyrs, and it has ever since been bound up with the dearest feelings of Christians. The arrangements of the Calendar, with which we are all familiar, are merely an expression of the same feeling as that recorded in the second-century document we have just now quoted. Christmas Day and St. Stephens Day are closely united, -the commemoration of Christs birth is joined with that of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, because of a certain spiritual instinct. Christmas Day records the fact of the Incarnation, and then we have according to the order of the Calendar three holy days; St. Stephens, St. Johns, and the Holy Innocents Day, which follow one another in immediate succession. Many persons will remember the explanation of an old commentator on the Calendar and Liturgy, of which Keble makes a very effective use in his hymns in the "Christian Year" set apart for those days. There are three classes of martyrs: one in will and deed like St. Stephen, -this is the highest class, therefore he has place next to Christ; another in will, but not in deed, like St. John the Divine, who was ready to suffer death, but did not, -this is the second rank, therefore his place comes next to St. Stephen; and lastly come the Holy Innocents, the babes of Bethlehem, martyrs in deed but not in will, and therefore in the lowest position. The Western Church, and especially the Church of Northern Europe, has always loved the Christmas season, with its cheerful fires, its social joys, its family memories; and hence, as it was in the Church of the second century, so with ourselves, none has a higher or dearer place in memory, doubtless largely owing to this conjunction, than the great proto-martyr. Men have delighted, therefore, to trace spiritual analogies and relationships between Stephen and Christ; fanciful perhaps some of them are, but still they are devout fancies, edifying fancies, fancies which strengthen and deepen the Divine life in the soul. Thus they have noted that Christmas Day and St. Stephens Day are both natal days. In the language of the ancient Church, with its strong realising faith, men spoke of a saints death or martyrdom as his dies natalis. This is, indeed, one of the many traces of primitive usage which the Church of Rome has preserved, like a fly fixed in amber, petrified in the midst of her liturgical uses. She has a Martyrology which the ordinary laity scarcely ever see or use, but which is in daily use among the clergy and the various ecclesiastical communities connected with that Church. It is in the Latin tongue, and is called the "Martyrologium Romanum," giving the names of the various saints whose memories are celebrated upon each day throughout the year, and every such day is duly styled the natal or birthday of the saint to whom it is appropriated. The Church of Rome retains this beautiful custom of the primitive Church, which viewed the death-day of a saint as his birthday into the true life, and rejoiced in it accordingly. That life was not, in the conception of the primitive believers, a life of ghosts and shadows. It was the life of realities, because it was the life of eternity, and therefore the early Christians lived for it, they longed for it, and counted their entrance upon it their true natal or birthday. The Church brought the two birthdays of Christ and Stephen into closest union, and men saw a beautiful reason for that union, teaching that Christ was born into this lower world in order that Stephen might be born into the heavenly world. The whole of that dreadful scene enacted at Jerusalem was transformed by the power of that beautiful conception. Stephens death was no longer a brutal murder; faith no longer saw the rage, the violence, the crushed body, the mangled and outraged humanity. The birthday of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Master, transfigured the death-scene of the servant, for the shame and sufferings were changed into peace and glory; the execrations and rage of the mob became angelic songs, and the missiles used by them were fashioned into messengers of the Most High, ushering the faithful martyr through a new birth into his eternal rest. Well would it be for the Church at large if she could rise to this early conception more frequently than she commonly does. Men did not then trouble themselves about questions of assurance, or their Christian consciousness. These topics and ideas are begotten on a lower level, and find sustenance in a different region. Men like Stephen and the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons lived in the other world; it was the world of all their interests, of all their passionate desires, of all their sense of realities. They lived the supernatural life, and they did not trouble themselves with any questions about that life, any more than a man in sound physical health and spirits cares to discuss topics dealing with the constitution of the life which he enjoys, or to debate such unprofitable questions as, How do I know that I exist at all? Christians then knew and felt they lived in God, and that was enough for them. We have wandered far enough afield, however; let us retrace our steps, and seek to discover more in detail the instruction for the life of future ages given us in this first martyr scene.
II. We have brought before us the cause of the sudden outburst against Stephen. For it was an outburst, a popular commotion, not a legal execution. We have already explained the circumstances which led the Sanhedrin to permit the mob to take their own course, and even to assist them in doing so. Pilate had departed; the imperial throne too was vacant in the spring or early summer of the year 37; there was an interregnum when the bonds of authority were relaxed, during which the Jews took leave to do as they pleased, trusting that when the bonds were again drawn tight the misdeeds of the past and the irregularities committed would be forgotten and forgiven. Hence the riot in which Stephen lost his life. But what roused the listeners-Sanhedrists, elders, priests, and people alike - to madness? They heard him patiently enough, just as they afterwards heard his successor Paul, till he spoke of the wider spiritual hope. Paul, as his speech is reported in the twenty-second chapter, was listened to till he spoke of being sent to the Gentiles. Stephen was listened to till he spoke of the free, universal, spiritual character of the Divine worship, tied to no place, bounded by no locality. Then the Sanhedrin waxed impatient, and Stephen, recognising with all an orators instinct and tact that his opportunity was over, changes his note-charging home upon his hearers the same spirit of criminal resistance to the leadings of the Most High as their fathers had always shown. The older Jews had ever resisted the Holy Ghost as He displayed His teaching and opened up His purposes under the Old Dispensation; their descendants had now followed their example in withstanding the same Divine Spirit manifested in that Holy One of whom they had lately been the betrayers and murderers. It is scarcely any wonder that such language should have been the occasion of his death. How exactly he follows the example of our Saviour! Stephen used strong language, and so did Jesus Christ. It has even been urged of late years that our Lord deliberately roused the Jews to action, and hastened his end by his violent language of denunciation against the ruling classes recorded in the twenty-third chapter of St. Matthew. There is, however, a great lesson of eternal significance to be derived from the example of St. Stephen as well as of our Lord. There are times when strong language is useful and necessary. Christs ordinary ministry was gentle, persuasive, mild. He did not strive nor cry, neither did any man hear His voice in the streets. But a time came when, persuasion having failed of its purpose, the language of denunciation took its place, and helped to work out in a way the Pharisees little expected the final triumph of truth. Stephen was skilful and gentle in his speech; his words must at first have sounded strangely flattering to their prejudices, coming from one who was accused as a traitor to his race and religion. Yet when the gentle words failed, stern denunciation, the plainest language, the keenest phrases, - "Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears," "Betrayers and murderers of the Righteous One,"-prove that a Christian martyr then, and Christs martyrs and witnesses of every age, are not debarred under certain circumstances from the use of such weapons. But it is hard to know when the proper time has come for their employment. The object of every true servant and witness of Christ will be to recommend the truth as effectually as possible, and to win for it acceptance. Some people seem to invert this course, and to think that it is unworthy a true follower of Christ to seek to present his message in an attractive shape. They regard every human art and every human motive or principle as so thoroughly bad that men should disregard and despise them. Human eloquence, or motives of policy and prudence, they utterly reject. Their principles lead some of them farther still. They reject the assistance which art and music and literature can lend to the cause of God, and the result is that men, specially as they grow in culture and civilisation, are estranged from the message of everlasting peace. Some people, with a hard, narrow conception of Christianity, are very responsible for the alienation of the young and the thoughtful from the side of religion through the misconceptions which they have caused. God has made the doctrines of the cross repugnant to the corrupt natural feelings of man, but it is not for us to make them repugnant to those good natural principles as well which the Eternal Father has implanted in human nature, and which are an echo of His own Divine self in the sanctuary of the heart. It is a real breach of charity when men refuse to deal tenderly in such matters with the lambs of Christs flock, and will not seek, as St. Stephen and the apostles did, to recommend Gods cause with all human skill, enlisting therein every good or indifferent human motive. Had St. Stephen thought it his duty to act as some unwise people do now, we should never have had his immortal discourse as a model for faithful and skilful preaching. We should merely have had instead the few words of vigorous denunciation with which the address closed. At the same time the presence of these stern words proves that there is a place for such strong language in the work of the Christian ministry. There is a time and place for all things, even for the use of strong language. The true teacher will seek to avoid giving unnecessary offences, but offence sharp and stern may be an absolute duty of charity when prejudice and bigotry and party spirit are choking the avenues of the soul, and hindering the progress of truth. And thus John the Baptist may call men a generation of vipers, and Paul may style Elymas a child of the devil, and Christ may designate the religious world of His day as hypocrites; and when occasion calls we should not hesitate to brand foul things with plain names, in order that men may be awakened from that deadly torpor into which sin threatens to fling them. The use of strong language by St. Stephen had its effect upon his listeners. They were sawn asunder in their hearts, they gnashed their teeth upon the martyr. His words stirred them up to some kind of action. The Gospel has a double operation, it possesses a twofold force-the faithful teaching of it cannot be in vain. To some it will be the savour of life unto life, to others the savour of death unto death. Opposition may be indeed unwisely provoked. It may be the proof to us of nothing else save our own wilfulness, our own folly and imprudence. But if Christian wisdom be used, and the laws of Christian charity duly observed, then the spirit of opposition and the violence of rage and persecution prove nothing else to the sufferers than that Gods word is working out His purposes, and bringing forth fruit, though it be unto destruction.
III. Again, the locality, the circumstances, and the surroundings of Stephens martyrdom deserve a brief notice. The place of his execution is pointed out by Christian tradition, and that tradition is supported by the testimony of Jewish custom and of Jewish writings. He was tried in the Temple precincts, or within sight of it, as is manifest from the words of the witnesses before the council, "He ceaseth not to speak against this holy place. We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place." The mob then rushed upon him. Under ordinary circumstances the Roman garrison stationed in the neighbouring town of Antonia, which overlooked the temple, would have noticed the riot, and have hastened to intervene, as they did many years after, when St. Pauls life was threatened in a similar Jewish outburst. But the political circumstances, as we have already shown, were now different. Roman authority was for the moment paralysed in Jerusalem. People living at great centres such as Rome once was, or London now is, have no idea how largely dependent distant colonies or outlying districts like Judaea are upon personal authority and individual lives. In case of a rulers death the action of the officials and of the army becomes necessarily slow, hesitating; it loses that backbone of energy, decision, and vigour which a living personal authority imparts. The decease of the Roman Emperor, synchronising with the recall of Pontius Pilate, must have paralysed the action of the subordinate officer then commanding at Antonia, who, unaware what turn events might take, doubtless thought that he was safe in restraining himself to the guardianship and protection of purely Roman interests.
The scene of Stephens murder is sometimes located in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, near the brook Kedron, under the shadow of Olivet, and over against the Garden of Gethsemane. To that spot the gate of Jerusalem, called the Gate of St. Stephen, now leads. Another tradition assigns the open country northeast of Jerusalem, on the road to Damascus and Samaria, as the place consecrated by the first death suffered for Jesus Christ. It is, however, according to the usual practice of Holy Scripture to leave this question undecided, or rather completely disregarded and overlooked. The Scriptures were not written to celebrate men or places, things temporary and transient in themselves, and without any bearing on the spiritual life. The Scriptures were written for the purpose of setting forth the example of devotion, of love, and of sanctity presented by its heroes, and therefore it shrouds all such scenes as that of Stephens martyrdom in thickest darkness. There is as little as possible of what is merely local, detailed, particular about the Scriptures. They rise into the abstract and the general as much as is consistent with being a historical narrative. Perhaps no spot in the world exhibits more evident and more abundant proofs of this Divine wisdom embodied in the Scriptures than this same city of Jerusalem as we now behold it. What locality could be more dear to Christian memory, or more closely allied with Christian hope, than the Holy Places, as they are emphatically called-the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and its surroundings? Yet the contending struggles of Roman Catholics, Greeks, and Armenians have made the whole subject a reproach and disgrace, and not an honour to the Christian name, showing how easily strife and partisanship and earthly passions enter in and usurp the ground which is nominally set apart for the honour of Christ Jesus. It is very hard to keep the spirit of the world out of the most sacred seasons or the holiest localities.
Stephen is hurried by the mob to this spot outside the Holy City, and then they proceed in regular judicial style so far as their fury will allow them. Dr. John Lightfoot, in his great work "Horae Hebraicae," dealing with this passage, notes how we can trace in it the leading ideas and practices of Jewish legal processes. The Sanhedrin and their supporters dragged St. Stephen out of the city. because it was the law as laid down in Lev_24:14 - "Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp." The Jews still retained vivid memories of their earlier history, just as students of sociology and ethnology still recognise in our own practices traces of ancient prehistoric usages, reminiscences of a time, ages now distant from us, when our ancestors lived the savage life in lands widely separated from our modern homes. So did the Jews still recognise the nomad state as their original condition, and even in the days of our Saviour looked upon Jerusalem as the camp of Israel, outside of which the blasphemer should be stoned.
Lightfoot then gives the elaborate ceremonial used to insure a fair trial, and the re-consideration of any evidence which might turn up at the very last moment. A few of the rules appointed for such occasions are well worth quoting, as showing the minute care with which the whole Jewish order of execution was regulated: "There shall stand one at the door of the Sanhedrin having a handkerchief in his hand, and a horse at such a distance as it was only within sight. If any one therefore say, I have something to offer on behalf of the condemned person, he waves the handkerchief, and the horseman rides and calls the-people back. Nay, if the man himself say, I have something to offer in my own defence, they bring him back four or five times one after another, if it be a thing of any moment he has to say." I doubt, adds Lightfoot, they hardly dealt so gently with the innocent Stephen. Lightfoot then describes how a crier preceded the doomed man proclaiming his crime, till the place of execution was reached; where, after he was stripped of his clothes, the two witnesses threw him violently down from a height of twelve feet, flinging upon him two large stones. The man was struck by one witness in the stomach, by the other upon the heart, when, if death did not at once ensue, the whole multitude lent their assistance. Afterwards the body was suspended on a tree. It will be evident from this outline of Lightfoots more prolonged and detailed statement that the leading ideas of Jewish practice were retained in St. Stephens case; but as the execution was as much the act of the people as of the Sanhedrin, it was carried out hurriedly and passionately. This will account for some of the details left to us. We usually picture to ourselves St. Stephen as perishing beneath a deadly hail of missiles, rained upon him by an infuriated mob, before whom he is flying, just as men are still maimed or killed in street riots; and we wonder therefore when or where St. Stephen could have found time to kneel down and commend his spirit to Christ, or to pray his last prayer of Divine charity and forgiveness under such circumstances as those we have imagined. The Jews, however, no matter how passionate and enraged, would have feared to incur the guilt of murder had they acted in this rough-and-ready method. The witnesses must first strike their blows, and thus take upon themselves the responsibility for the blood about to be shed if it should turn out innocent. The culprits, too, were urged to confess their sin to God before they died. Stephen may have taken advantage of this well-known form to kneel down and offer up his parting prayers, which displaying his steadfast faith in Jesus only stirred up afresh the wrath of his adversaries, who thereupon proceeded to the last extremities.
Stephens death was a type of the vast majority of future martyrdoms, in this among other respects: it was a death suffered for Christ, just as Christs own death was suffered for the world at large, and that under the forms of law and clothed with its outward dignity. Christianity proclaims the dignity of law and order, and supports it-teaches that the magistrate is the minister of God, and that he does a divinely appointed work, but Christianity does not proclaim the infallibility of human laws or of human magistrates. Christianity does not teach that any human law or human magistrate can dictate to the individual conscience, or intrude itself into the inner temple of the soul. Christianity indeed has, by a long and bitter experience, taught the contrary, and vindicated the rights of a free conscience, by patiently suffering all that could be done against it by the powers of the world assuming the forms and using the powers of law. Christians, I say, have taught the dignity of law and order, and yet they have not hesitated to resist and overturn bad laws, not however so much by active opposition as by the patient suffering of all that fiendish cruelty and lust could devise against the followers of the Cross. Just as it was under the forms of law that our Saviour died and Stephen was executed, and Peter and Paul passed to their rest, so was it under the same forms of law that the primitive Church passed through those ten great persecutions which terminated by seating her on the throne of the Caesars. Law is a good thing. The absence of law is chaos. The presence of law, even though it be bad law, is better than no law at all. But the individual Christian conscience is higher than any human law. It should yield obedience in things lawful and indifferent. But in things clearly sinful the Christian conscience will honour the majesty of law by refusing obedience and then by suffering patiently and lovingly, as Stephen did, the penalty attached to conscientious disobedience.
IV. Let us now briefly notice the various points of interest, some of them of deep doctrinal importance, which gather round St. Stephens death. We are told, for instance, that the martyr, seeing his last hour approaching, "looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Surely critics must have been sorely in want of objections to the historical truth of the narrative when they raised the point that Stephen could not have looked up to heaven because he was in a covered chamber and could not have seen through the roof! This is simply a carping objection, and the expression used about St. Stephen is quite in keeping with the usus loquendi of Scripture. In the seventeenth of St. John, and at the first verse, we read of our Lord that "lifting up His eyes to heaven" He prayed His great eucharistic prayer on behalf of His Apostles. He lifted His eyes to heaven though He was in the upper chamber at the time. The Scriptural idea of heaven is not that of the little child, a region placed far away above the bright blue sky and beyond the distant stars, but rather that of a spiritual world shrouded from us for the present by the veil of matter, and yet so thinly separated that a moment may roll away the temporary covering and disclose the world of realities which lies behind. Such has been the conception of the deepest minds and the profoundest teaching. St. Stephen did not need a keen vision and an open space and a clear sky, free from clouds and smoke, as this objection imagines. Had St. Stephen been in a dungeon and his eyes been blind, the spiritual vision might still have been granted, and the consolation and strength afforded which the sight of his ascended Lord vouchsafed. This view of heaven and the unseen world is involved in the very word revelation, which, in its original Greek shape, apocalypse, means simply an uncovering, a rolling away of something that was flimsy, temporary, and transient, that a more abiding and nobler thing may be seen. The roof, the pillars, the solid structure of the temple, the priests and Levites, the guards and listeners, all were part of the veil of matter which suddenly rolled away from Stephens intensified view, that he might receive, as the martyrs of every age have received, the special assistance which the King of Martyrs reserves for the supreme hour of mans need. The vision of our Lord granted at this moment has its own teaching for us. We are apt to conjure up thoughts of the sufferings of the martyrs, to picture to ourselves a Stephen perishing under a shower of stones, an Ignatius of Antioch flung to the beasts, a Polycarp of Smyrna suffering at the stake, the victims of pagan cruelty dying under the ten thousand forms of diabolical cruelty subsequently invented; and then we ask ourselves, could we possibly have stood firm against such tortures? We forget the lesson of Stephens vision. Jesus Christ did not draw back the veil till the last moment; He did not vouchsafe the supporting vision till the need for it had come, and then to Stephen, as to all His saints in the past, and to all His saints in the future, the Master reveals Himself in all His supporting and sustaining power, reminding us in our humble daily spheres that it is our part to do our duty, and bear such burdens as the Lord puts upon us now, leaving to Him all care and thought for the future, content simply to trust that as our day is so shall our grace and our strength be, Stephens vision has thus a lesson of comfort and of guidance for those fretful souls who, not. content with the troubles and trials of the present, and the help which God imparts to bear them, will go on and strive to ascertain how they are to bear imaginary dangers, losses, and temptations which may never come upon them.
Then, again, we have the final words of Stephen, which are full of important meaning, for they bear witness unto the faith and doctrine of the apostolic Church. They stoned Stephen, "calling upon the Lord, and saying. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"; while again a few moments later he cried, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." The latter petition is evidently an echo of our Lords own prayer on the cross, which had set up a high standard of Divine charity in the Church. The first martyr imitates the spirit and the very language of the Master, and prays for his enemies as Christ himself had done a short time before; while the other recorded petition, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," is an echo likewise of our Lords, when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit." We note specially about these prayers, not only that they breathe the spirit of Christ Himself, but that they are addressed to Christ, and are thus evidences to us of the doctrine and practice of the early Church in the matter of prayer to our Lord. St. Stephen is the first distinct instance of such prayer, but the more closely we investigate this book of the Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul, the more clearly we shall find that all the early Christians invoked Christ, prayed to Him as one raised to a supernatural sphere and gifted with Divine power, so that He was able to hear and answer their petitions. St. Stephen prayed to Christ, and commended his soul to Him, with the same confidence as Christ Himself commended His soul to the Father. And such commendation was no chance expression, no exclamation of adoring love merely. It was the outcome of the universal practice of the Church, which resorted to God through Jesus Christ. Prayer to Christ and the invocation of Christ were notes of the earliest disciples. Saul went to Damascus "to bind all that called upon the name of Jesus." {Act_9:14} The Damascene Jews are amazed at the converted Sauls preaching of Jesus Christ, saying, "Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them which called on this name?" {Acrs 9:21} While again Rom_10:12 and 1Co_1:2 prove that the same custom spread forth from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the Church. The passage to which I have just referred in the Corinthian Epistle is decisive as to St. Pauls teaching at a much later period than St. Stephens death, when the Church had had time to formulate its doctrines and to weigh its teaching. Yet even then, he was just as clear on this point as Stephen years before, addressing his Epistle to the Church of God at Corinth, "with all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every place"; while again, when we descend to the generation which came next after the apostolic age, we find, from Plinys celebrated letter written to Trajan, describing the practices and ideas of the Christians of Bithynia in the earliest years of the second century, that it was then the same as in St. Pauls day. One of the leading features of the new sect as it appeared to an intelligent pagan was this: "They sang a hymn to Christ as God." St. Stephen is the earliest instance of such worship directly addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ, a practice which has ever since been steadily maintained in every branch of the Church of Christ. It has been denied, indeed, in modern times that the Church of England in her formularies gives a sanction to this practice, which is undoubtedly apostolical. A reference, however, to the collect appointed for the memorial day of this blessed martyr would have been a sufficient answer to this assertion, as that collect contains a very beautiful prayer to Christ, beseeching assistance, similar to that given to St. Stephen, amid the troubles of our own lives. The whole structure of all liturgies, and specially of the English liturgy, protests against such an idea. The Book of Common Prayer teems with prayer to Jesus Christ. The Te Deum is in great part a prayer addressed to Him; so is the Litany, and so are collects like the prayer of St. Chrysostom, the Collect for the First Sunday in Lent, and the well-known prayer for the Third Sunday in Advent-"O Lord Jesu Christ, who at Thy first coming didst send Thy messenger to prepare Thy way." The Eastern Church indeed addresses a greater number of prayers to Christ directly. The Western Church, basing itself on the promise of Christ, "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My Name, He will give it you," has ever directed the greater portion of her prayers to the Father through the Son; but the few leading cases just mentioned, cases which are common to the whole Western Church, Reformed or unreformed, will prove that the West also has followed primitive custom in calling upon the name and invoking the help of the Lord Jesus Himself. And then when Stephen had given us these two lessons, one of faith, the other of practice; when he had taught us the doctrine of Christs divinity and the worship due to Him, and the practice of Christian charity and the forgiving spirit which flows forth from it, even towards those who have treated His servants most cruelly, then Stephen "fell asleep," the sacred writer using an expression for death indicative of the new aspect which death had assumed through Christ, and which henceforth gave the name of cemeteries to the last resting-places of Christian people.
V. The execution of St. Stephen was followed by his funeral. The bodies of those that were stoned were also suspended on a tree, but there was no opposition to their removal, as afterwards in the great persecutions. The pagans, knowing that Christians preached the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, strove to prove the absurdity of this tenet by reducing the body to ashes. The Christians, however, repeatedly proved that they entertained no narrow views on this point, and did not expect the resurrection of the identical elements of which the earthly body was composed. They took a broader and nobler view of St. Pauls teaching in the fifteenth of 1st Corinthians, and regarded the natural body as merely the seed out of which the resurrection body was to be developed. This is manifest from some of the stories told us by ancient historians concerning the Christians of the second century. The martyrs of Vienne and Lyons have been already referred to, and their sufferings described. The pagans knew of their doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and thought to defeat it by scattering the ashes of the martyrs upon the waters of the Rhone; but the narrative of Eusebius tells us how foolish was this attempt, as if man could thus overcome God, whose almighty power avails to raise the dead from the ashes scattered over the ocean as easily as from the bones gathered into a sepulchre. Another story is handed down by a writer of Antioch named John Malalas, who lived about A.D. 600, concerning five Christian virgins, who lived some seventy years earlier than these Gallic martyrs, and fell victims to the persecution which raged at Antioch in the days of the Emperor Trajan, when St. Ignatius perished. They were burned to death for their constancy in the faith, and then their ashes were mingled with brass, which was made into basins for the public baths. Every person who used the basins became ill, and then the emperor caused the basins to be formed into statues of the virgins, in order, as Trajan said, that "it may be seen that I and not their God have raised them up."
But while it is plainly evident from the records of history that the earliest Christians had no narrow views about the relation between the present body of humiliation and the future body of glory, it is equally manifest that they paid the greatest attention to the mortal remains of their deceased friends, and permitted the fullest indulgence in human grief. In doing so they were only following the example of their Master, who sorrowed over Lazarus, and whose own mortal remains were cared for by the loving reverence of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea. Christianity was no system of Stoicism. Stoicism was indeed the noblest form of Greek thought, and one which approached most closely to the Christian standpoint, but it put a ban upon human affection and feeling. Christianity acted otherwise. It flung a bright light on death, and illuminated the dark recesses of the tomb through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the prospect for humanity which that resurrection opens up. But it did not make the vain attempt of Stoicism to eradicate human nature: Nay, rather, Christianity sanctified it by the example of Jesus Christ, and by the brief notice of the mourning of the Church for the loss of their foremost champion, St. Stephen, which we find in our narrative. Such a gratification of natural feeling has never been inconsistent with the highest form of Christian faith. There may be the most joyous anticipation as to our friends who have been taken from us, joined with the saddest reflections as to our own bereavement. We may be most assured that our loss is the infinite gain of the departed, and for them we mourn not; but we cannot help feeling that we have sustained a loss, and for our loss we must grieve. The feelings of a Christian even now must be thus mixed, and surely much more must this have been the case when devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him.
The last results we note in this passage of Stephens death are twofold. Stephens martyrdom intensified the persecution for a time. Saul of Tarsus was made for a while a more determined and active persecutor. His mental position, his intellectual convictions, had received a shock, and he was trying to re-establish himself, and quench his doubts, by intensifying his exertions on behalf of the ancient creed. Some of the most violent persecutions the Church has ever had to meet were set on foot by men whose faith in their own systems was deeply shaken, or who at times have had no faith in anything at all. The men whose faith had been shaken endeavoured, by their activity in defence of the system in which they once fully believed, to obtain an external guarantee and assurance of its truth; while the secret unbeliever was often the worst of persecutors, because he regarded all religions as equally false, and therefore looked upon the new teachers as rash and mischievous innovators.
The result then of Stephens martyrdom was to render the Churchs state at Jerusalem worse for the time. The members of the Church were scattered far and wide, all save the Apostles. Here we behold a notable instance of the protecting care of Providence over His infant Church. All save the Apostles were dispersed from Jerusalem. One might have expected that they would have been specially sought after, and would have been necessarily the first to flee. There is an early tradition, however, which goes back to the second century, and finds some support in this passage, that our Lord ordered the Apostles to remain m the city of Jerusalem for twelve years after the Ascension, in order that every one there might have an opportunity of hearing the truth. His protecting hand was over the heads of the Church while the members were scattered abroad. But that same hand turned the apparent trial into the Churchs permanent gain. The Church now, for the first time, found what it ever after proved to be the case. "They that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word." The Churchs present loss became its abiding gain.
The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church. Violence reacted on the cause of those who employed it, as violence-no matter how it may temporarily triumph-always reacts on those who use it, whether their designs be intrinsically good or bad; till, in a widely disseminated Gospel, and in a daily increasing number of disciples, the eye of faith learned to read the clearest fulfilment of the ancient declaration, "The wrath of man shall praise God, and the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain."
Chapter 1
THE TRAINING OF SAUL THE RABBI
Act_7:58; Act_22:3
THE appearance of St. Paul upon the stage of Christian history marks a period of new development and of more enlarged activity. The most casual reader of the Acts of the Apostles must see that a personality of vast power, force, individuality, has now entered the bounds of the Church, and that henceforth St. Paul, his teaching, methods, and actions, will throw all others into the shade. Modern German critics have seized upon this undoubted fact and made it the foundation on which they have built elaborate theories concerning St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. Some of them have made St. Paul the inventor of a new form of Christianity, more elaborate, artificial, and dogmatic than the simple religion of nature which, as they think, Jesus Christ taught. Others have seen in St. Paul the great rival and antagonist of St. Peter, and have seen in the Acts a deliberate attempt to reconcile the opposing factions of Peter and Paul by representing St. Pauls career as modelled upon that of Peter. These theories are, we believe, utterly groundless; but they show at the same time what an important event in early Church history St. Pauls conversion was, and how necessary a thorough comprehension of his life and training if we wish to understand the genesis of our holy religion.
Who and whence, then, was this enthusiastic man who is first introduced to our notice in connection with St. Stephens martyrdom? What can we glean from Scripture and from secular history concerning his earlier career? I am not going to attempt to do what Conybeare and Howson thirty years ago, or Archdeacon Farrar in later times, have executed with a wealth of learning and a profuseness of imagination which I could not pretend to possess. Even did I possess them it would be impossible, for want of space, to write such a biography of St. Paul as these authors have given to the public. Let us, however, strive to gather up such details of St. Pauls early life and training as the New Testament, illustrated by history, sets before us. Perhaps we shall find that more is told us than strikes the ordinary superficial reader. His parentage is known to us from St. Pauls own statement. His father and mother were Jews of the Dispersion, as the Jews scattered abroad amongst the Gentiles were usually called; they were residents at Tarsus in Cilicia, and by profession belonged to the Pharisees who then formed the more spiritual and earnest religious section of the Jewish people. We learn this from three passages. In his defence before the Council, recorded in Act_23:6, he tells us that he was "a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees." There was no division in religious feeling between the parents. His home life and his earliest years knew nothing of religious jars and strife. Husband and wife were joined not only in the external bonds of marriage, but in the profounder union still of spiritual sentiment and hope, a memory which may have inspired a deeper meaning, begotten of personal experience in the warning delivered to the Corinthians, "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers." Of the history of his parents and ancestors we know practically nothing more for certain, but we can glean a little from other notices. St. Paul tells us that he belonged to a special division among the Jews, of which we have spoken a good deal in the former volume when dealing with St. Stephen. The Jews at this period were divided into Hebrews and Hellenists: that is, Hebrews who by preference and in their ordinary practice spoke the Hebrew tongue, and Hellenists who spoke Greek and adopted Greek civilisation and customs. St. Paul tells us in Php_3:5 that he was "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews," a statement which he substantially repeats in 2Co_11:22. Now it was almost an impossibility for a Jew of the Dispersion to belong to the Hebrews. His lot was cast in a foreign land, his business mixed him up with the surrounding pagans so that the use of the Greek language was an absolute necessity; while the universal practice of his fellow-countrymen in conforming themselves to Greek customs, Greek philosophy, and Greek civilisation rendered the position of one who would stand out for the old Jewish national ideas and habits a very trying and a very peculiar one. Here, however, comes in an ancient tradition, recorded by St. Jerome, which throws some light upon the difficulty. Scripture tells us that St. Paul was born at Tarsus. Our Lord in His conversation with Ananias in Act_9:2, calls him "Saul of Tarsus," while again the Apostle himself in the twenty-second chapter describes himself as "a Jew born in Tarsus." But then the question arises, how came his parents to Tarsus, and how, being in Tarsus, could they be described as Hebrews while all around and about them their countrymen were universally Hellenists? St. Jerome here steps in to help us. He relates, in his "Catalogue of Illustrious Writers," that "Paul the Apostle, previously called Saul, being outside the number of the Twelve, was of the tribe of Benjamin and of the city of the Jewish Gischala; on the capture of which by the Romans he migrated with them to Tarsus." Now this statement of Jerome, written four hundred years after the event, is clearly inaccurate in many respects, and plainly contradicts the Apostles own words that he was born in Tarsus.
But yet the story probably embodies a tradition substantially true, that St. Pauls parents were originally from Galilee. Galilee was intensely Hebrew. It was provincial, and the provinces are always far less affected by advance in thought or in religion than the towns, which are the chosen homes of innovation and of progress. Hellenism might flourish in Jerusalem, but in Galilee it would not be tolerated; and the tough, sturdy Galileans alone would have moral and religious grit enough to maintain the old Hebrew customs and language; even amid the abounding inducements to an opposite course which a great commercial centre like Tarsus held out. Assuredly our own experience affords many parallels illustrating the religious history of St. Pauls family. The Evangelical revival, the development of ritual in the Church of England, made their mark first of all in the towns, and did not affect the distant country districts till long after. The Presbyterianism of the Highlands is almost a different religion from the more enlightened and more cultured worship of Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Low Church and Orange developments of Ulster bring us back to the times of the last century, and seem passing strange to the citizens of London, Manchester, or Dublin, who first make their acquaintance in districts where obsolete ideas and cries still retain a power quite forgotten in the vast tide of life and thought which sways the great cities. And yet these rural backwaters, as we may call them, retain their influence, and show strong evidence of life even in the great cities; and so it is that even in London and Edinburgh and Glasgow and Dublin congregations continue to exist in their remoter districts and back streets where the prejudices and ideas of the country find full sway and exercise. The Presbyterianism of the Highlands and the Orangeism of Ulster will be sought in vain in fashionable churches, but in smaller assemblies they will be found exercising a sway and developing a life which will often astonish a superficial observer.
So it was doubtless in Tarsus. The Hebrews of Galilee would delight to separate themselves. They would look down upon the Hellenism of their fellow-countrymen as a sad falling away from ancient orthodoxy, but their declension would only add a keener zest to the zeal with which the descendants of the Hebrews of Gischala, even in the third and fourth generations, as it may have been, would retain the ancient customs and language of their Galilean forefathers.
St. Paul and his parents might seem to an outsider mere Hellenists, but their Galilean origin and training enabled them to retain the intenser Judaism which qualified the Apostle to describe himself as not only of the stock of Israel, but as a Hebrew of the Hebrews.
St. Pauls more immediate family connections have also some light thrown upon them in the New Testament. We learn, for instance, from Act_23:16, that he had a married sister, who probably lived at Jerusalem, and may have been even a convert to Christianity; for we are told that her son, having heard of the Jewish plot to murder the Apostle, at once reported it to St. Paul himself, who thereupon put his nephew into communication with the chief captain in whose custody he lay. While again, in Rom_16:7; Rom_16:11, he sends salutations to Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion, his kinsmen, who were residents in Rome; and in verse 21 {Rom_16:21} of the same chapter joins Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, his kinsmen, with himself in the Christian wishes for the welfare of the Roman Church, with which he closes the Epistle. It is said, indeed, that this may mean simply that these men were Jews, and that St. Paul regarded all Jews as his kinsmen. But this notion is excluded by the form of the twenty-first verse, where he first sends greetings from Timothy, whom St. Paul dearly loved, and who was a circumcised Jew, not a proselyte merely, but a true Jew, on his mothers side, at least; and then the Apostle proceeds to name the persons whom he designates his kinsmen. St. Paul evidently belonged to a family of some position in the Jewish world, whose ramifications were dispersed into very distant quarters of the empire. Every scrap of information which we can gain concerning the early life and associations of such a man is very precious; we may therefore point out that we can even get a glimpse of the friends and acquaintances of his earliest days. Barnabas the Levite was of Cyprus, an island only seventy miles distant from Tarsus, In all probability Barnabas may have resorted to the Jewish schools of Tarsus, or may have had some other connections with the Jewish colony of that city. Some such early friendship may have been the link which bound Paul to Barnabas and enabled the latter to stand sponsor for the newly converted Saul when the Jerusalem Church was yet naturally suspicious of him. "And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apostles." {Act_9:26-27} This ancient friendship enabled Barnabas to pursue the Apostle with those offices of consolation which his nascent faith demanded. He knew Sauls boyhood haunts, and therefore it is we read in Act_11:25 that "Barnabas went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul" when a multitude of the Gentiles began to pour into the Church of Antioch. Barnabas knew his old friends vigorous, enthusiastic character, his genius, his power of adaptation, and therefore he brought him back to Antioch, where for a whole year they were joined in one holy brotherhood of devout and successful labour for their Master. The friendships and love of boyhood and of youth received a new consecration and were impressed with a loftier ideal from the example of Saul and of Barnabas.
Then again there are other friends of his youth to whom he refers. Timothys family lived at Lystra, and Lystra was directly connected with Tarsus by a great road which ran straight from Tarsus to Ephesus, offering means for that frequent communication in which the Jews ever delighted. St. Pauls earliest memories carried him back to the devout atmosphere of the pious Jewish family at Lystra, which he had long known, where Lois the grandmother and Eunice the mother had laid the foundations of that spiritual life which under St. Pauls own later teaching flourished so wondrously in the life of Timothy. Let us pass on, however, to a period of later development. St. Pauls earliest teaching at first was doubtless that of the home. As with Timothy so with the Apostle; his earliest religious teacher was doubtless his mother, who from his infancy imbued him with the great rudimentary truths which lie at the basis of both the Jewish and the Christian faith. His father too took his share. He was a Pharisee, and would be anxious to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law and every minute rule which the Jewish doctors had deduced by an attention and a subtlety concentrated for ages upon the text of the Old Testament. And one great doctor had laid down, "When a boy begins to speak, his father ought to talk with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law"; a rule which would exactly fall in with his fathers natural inclination. He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, though dwelling among Hellenists. He prided himself on speaking the Hebrew language alone, and he therefore would take the greatest pains that the future Apostles earliest teachings should be in that same sacred tongue, giving him from boyhood that command over Hebrew and its dialects which he afterwards turned to the best of uses.
At five years old Jewish children of parents like St. Pauls advanced to the direct study of the law under the guidance of some doctor, whose school they daily attended, as another rabbi had expressly enacted, "At five years old a boy should apply himself to the study of Holy Scripture." Between five and thirteen Saul was certainly educated at Tarsus, during which period his whole attention was concentrated upon sacred learning and upon mechanical or industrial training. It was at this period of his life that St. Paul must have learned the trade of tentmaking, which during the last thirty years of his life stood him in such good stead, rendering him independent of all external aid so far as his bodily wants were concerned. A question has often been raised as to the social position of St. Pauls family; and people, bringing their Western ideas with them, have thought that the manual trade which he was taught betokened their humble rank. But this is quite a mistake. St. Pauls family must have occupied at least a fairly comfortable position, when they were able to send a member of their house to Jerusalem to be taught in the most celebrated rabbinical school of the time. But it was the law of that school - and a very useful law it was too - that every Jew, and especially every teacher, should possess a trade bywhich he might be supported did necessity call for it. It was a common proverb among the Jews at that time that "He who taught not his son a trade taught him to be a thief." "It is incumbent on the father to circumcise his son, to redeem him, to teach him the law, and to teach him some occupation, for, as Rabbi Judah saith, whosoever teacheth not his son to do some work is as if he taught him robbery." "Rabbin Gamaliel saith, He that hath a trade in his hand, to what is he like? He is like to a vineyard that is fenced." Such was the authoritative teaching of the schools, and Jewish practice was in accordance therewith. Some of the most celebrated rabbis of that time were masters of a mechanical art or trade. The vice-president of the Sanhedrin was a merchant for four years, and then devoted himself to the study of the law. One rabbi was a shoemaker; Rabbi Juda, the great Cabalist, was a tailor; Rabbi Jose was brought up as a tanner; another rabbi as a baker, and yet another as a carpenter. And so as a preparation for the office and life work to which his father had destined him, St. Paul during his earlier years was taught one of the common trades of Tarsus, which consisted in making tents either out of the hair or the skin of the Angora goats which browsed over the hills of central Asia Minor. It was a trade that was common among Jews. Aquila and his wife Priscilla were tent-makers, and therefore St. Paul united himself to them and wrought at his trade in their company at Corinth. {Act_18:3} It has often been asserted that at this period of his life St. Paul must have studied Greek philosophy and literature, and men have pointed to his quotatations from the Greek poets Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander, to prove the attention which the Apostle must have bestowed upon them. {See Act_17:28, Tit_1:12, 1Co_15:33} Tarsus was certainly one of the great universities of that age, ranking in the first place along with Athens and Alexandria. So great was its fame that the Roman emperors even were wont to go to Tarsus to look for rotors to instruct their sons. But Tarsus was at the very same time one of the most morally degraded spots within the bounds of the Roman world, and it is not at all likely that a strict Hebrew, a stern Pharisee, would have allowed his son to encounter the moral taint involved in freely mixing with such a degraded people and in the free study of a literature permeated through and through with sensuality and idolatry. St. Paul doubtless at this early period of his life gained that colloquial knowledge of Greek which was every day becoming more and more necessary for the ordinary purposes of secular life all over the Roman Empire, even in the most backward parts of Palestine. But it is not likely that his parents would have sanctioned his attendance at the lectures on philosophy and poetry delivered at the University of Tarsus, where he would have been initiated into all the abominations of paganism in a style most attractive to human nature.
At thirteen years of age, or thereabouts, young Saul, having now learned all the sacred knowledge which the local rabbis could teach, went up to Jerusalem just as our Lord did, to assume the full obligations of a Jew and to pursue his higher studies at the great Rabbinical University of Jerusalem. To put it in modern language, Saul went up to Jerusalem to be confirmed and admitted to the full privileges and complete obligations of the Levitical Law, and he also went up to enter college. St. Paul himself describes the period of life on which he now entered as that in which he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. We have already touched in a prior volume upon the subject of Gamaliels history and his relation to Christianity, but here it is necessary to say something of him as a teacher, in which capacity he laid the foundations of modes of thought and reasoning, the influence of which moulded St. Pauls whole soul and can be traced all through St. Pauls Epistles.
Gamaliel is an undoubtedly historical personage. The introduction of him in the Acts of the Apostles is simply another instance of that marvellous historical accuracy which every fresh investigation and discovery show to be a distinguishing feature of this book. The Jewish Talmud was not committed to writing for more than four centuries after Gamaliels time, and yet it presents Gamaliel to us in exactly the same light as the inspired record does, telling us that "with the death of Gamaliel I the reverence for the Divine law ceased, and the observance of purity and abstinence departed." Gamaliel came of a family distinguished in Jewish history both before and after his own time. He was of the royal House of David, and possessed in this way great historical claims upon the respect of the nation. His grandfather Hillel and his father Simeon were celebrated teachers and expounders of the law. His grandfather had founded indeed one of the leading schools of interpretation then favoured by the rabbis. His father Simeon is said by some to have been the aged man who took up the infant Christ in his arms and blessed God for His revealed salvation in the words of the "Nunc Dimittis"; while, as for Gamaliel himself, his teaching was marked by wisdom, prudence, liberality, and spiritual depth, so far as such qualities could exist in a professor of rabbinical learning. Gamaliel was a friend and contemporary of Philo, and this fact alone must have imported an element of liberality into his teaching. Philo was a widely read scholar who strove to unite the philosophy of Greece to the religion of Palestine, and Philos ideas must have permeated more or less into some at least of the schools of Jerusalem, so that, though St. Paul may not have come in contact with Greek literature in Tarsus, he may very probably have learned much about it in a Judaised, purified, spiritualised shape in Jerusalem. But the influence exercised on St. Paul by Gamaliel and through him by Philo, or men of his school, can be traced in other respects.
The teaching of Gamaliel was as spiritual, I have said, as rabbinical teaching could have been; but this is not saying very much from the Christian point of view. The schools at Jerusalem in the time of Gamaliel were wholly engaged in studies of the most wearisome, narrow, petty, technical kind. Dr. Farrar has illustrated this subject with a great wealth of learning and examples in the fourth chapter of his "Life of St. Paul." The Talmud alone shows this, throwing a fearful light upon the denunciations of our Lord as regards the Pharisees, for it devotes a whole treatise to washings of the hands, and another to the proper method of killing fowls. The Pharisaic section of the Jews held, indeed, that there were two hundred and forty-eight commandments and three hundred and sixty-five prohibitions involved in the Jewish Law, all of them equally binding, and all of them so searching that if only one solitary Jew could be found who for one day kept them all and transgressed in no one direction, then the captivity of Gods people would cease and the Messiah would appear.
I am obliged to pass over this point somewhat rapidly, and yet it is a most important one if we desire to know what kind of training the Apostle received; for, no matter how Gods grace may descend and the Divine Spirit may change the main directions of a mans life, he never quite recovers himself from the effects of his early teaching. Dr. Farrar has bestowed much time and labour on this point. The following brief extract from his eloquent word, will give a vivid idea of the endless puerilities, the infinite questions of pettiest, most minute, and most subtle bearing with which the time of St. Paul and his fellow-students must have been taken up, and which must have made him bitterly feel in the depths of his inmost being that, though the law may have been originally intended as a source of life, it had been certainly changed as regards his own particular case, and had become unto him an occasion of death.
"Moreover, was there not mingled with all this nominal adoration of the Law a deeply seated hypocrisy, so deep that it was in a great measure unconscious? Even before the days of Christ the rabbis had learnt the art of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. They had long learnt to nullify what they professed to defend. The ingenuity of Hillel was quite capable of getting rid of any Mosaic regulation which had been found practically burdensome. Pharisees and Sadducees alike had managed to set aside in their own favour, by the devices of the mixtures, all that was disagreeable to themselves in the Sabbath scrupulosity. The fundamental institution of the Sabbatic year had been stultified by the mere legal fiction of the Prosbol. Teachers who were on the high road to a casuistry which could construct rules out of every superfluous particle, had found it easy to win credit for ingenuity by elaborating prescriptions to which Moses would have listened in mute astonishment. If there be one thing more definitely laid down in the Law than another, it is the uncleanness of creeping things; yet the Talmud assures us that no one is appointed a member of the Sanhedrin who does not possess sufficient ingenuity to prove from the written Law that a creeping thing is ceremonially clean; and that there was an unimpeachable disciple at Jabne who could adduce one hundred and fifty arguments in favour of the ceremonial cleanness of creeping things. Sophistry like this was at work even in the days when the young student of Tarsus sat at the feet of Gamaliel; and can we imagine any period of his life when he would not have been wearied by a system at once so meaningless, so stringent, and so insincere?"
These words are true, thoroughly true, in their extremest sense. Casuistry is at all times a dangerous weapon with which to play, a dangerous science upon which to concentrate ones attention. The mind is so pleased with the fascination of the precipice that one is perpetually tempted to see how near an approach can be made without a catastrophe, and then the catastrophe happens when it is least expected. But when the casuists attention is concentrated upon one volume like the law of Moses, interpreted in the thousand methods and combinations open to the luxuriant imagination of the East, then indeed the danger is infinitely increased, and we cease to wonder at the vivid, burning, scorching denunciations of the Lord as He proclaimed the sin of those who enacted that "Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor." St. Pauls whole time must have been taken up in the school of Gamaliel with an endless study of such casuistical trifles; and yet that period of his life left marks which we can clearly trace throughout his writings. The method, for instance, in which St. Paul quotes the Old Testament is thoroughly rabbinical. It was derived from the rules prevalent in the Jewish schools, and therefore, though it may seem to us at times forced and unnatural, must have appeared to St. Paul and to the men of his time absolutely conclusive. When reading the Scriptures we Westerns forget the great difference between Orientals and the nations of Western Europe. Aristotle and his logic and his logical methods, with major and minor premises and conclusions following therefrom, absolutely dominate our thoughts. The Easterns knew nothing of Aristotle, and his methods availed nothing to their minds. They argued in quite a different style, and used a logic which he would have simply scorned. Analogy, allegory, illustration, form the staple elements of Eastern logic, and in their use St. Paul was elaborately trained in Gamaliels classes, and of their use his writings furnish abundant examples; the most notable of which will be found in his allegorical interpretation of the events of the wilderness journey of Israel in 1Co_10:1-4, where the pillar of cloud, and the passage of the Red Sea, and the manna, and the smitten rock become the emblems and types of the Christian Sacraments; and again, in St. Pauls mystical explanation of Gal_4:21-31, where Hagar and Sarah are represented as typical of the two covenants, the old covenant leading to spiritual bondage and the new introducing to gospel freedom.
These, indeed, are the most notable examples of St. Pauls method of exegesis derived from the school of Gamaliel, but there are numberless others scattered all through his writings. If we view them through Western spectacles, we shall be disappointed and miss their force; but if we view them sympathetically, if we remember that the Jews quoted and studied the Old Testament to find illustrations of their own ideas rather than proofs in our sense of the word, studied them as an enthusiastic Shakespeare or Tennyson or Wordsworth student pores over his favourite author to find parallels which others, who are less bewitched, find very slight and very dubious indeed, then we shall come to see how it is that St. Paul quotes an illustration of his doctrine of justification by faith from Hab_2:4 - "The soul of the proud man is not upright, but the just man shall live by his steadfastness"; a passage which originally applied to the Chaldeans and the Jews, predicting that the former should enjoy no stable prosperity, but that the Jews, ideally represented as the just or upright man, should live securely because of their fidelity; and can find an allusion to the resurrection of Christ in "the sure mercies of David," which God had promised to give His people in the third verse of the fifty-fifth of Isaiah.
Rabbinical learning, Hebrew discipline, Greek experience and life, these conspired together with natural impulse and character to frame and form and mould a man who must make his mark upon the world at large in whatever direction he chooses for his walk in life. It will now be our duty to show what were the earliest results of this very varied education.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 30, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59 1. Are these things so? As president, the high…
1. Are these things so? As president, the high priest asks what reply Stephen has to make to the charges.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 9, 17, 45, 54 Act_7:1. The high priest’s question, Are these things so?…
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act_7:1. The high priest’s question, Are these things so? analogous to that put to Christ (Mat_26:62), was equivalent to a modern “Guilty or not guilty?”
Read full note →
Act_7:2. Concerning what Stephen said in reply, Luke’s information may have been derived either from Paul, who probably was present on the occasion (Act_26:10), and afterwards in his own speeches and writings reproduced the martyr’s language (compare Act_7:48 with Act_16:24, and Act_7:53 with Gal_3:19), or from records of it preserved by the Church at Jerusalem. The God of glory.—i.e., who manifested His presence by means of the glory (Exo_16:7; Exo_16:10; Exo_24:16; Exodus 17; Exo_33:18; Exo_33:22; Exo_40:34; Exodus 35; Lev_9:6; Leviticus 23; Num_14:10; Num_14:21-22)—i.e., of the Shechinah or luminous appearance which shone between the Cherubim (Psa_80:1). Before he dwelt in Charran, or Haran.—Carræ in North-West Mesopotamia, about twenty-five miles from Edessa, one of the supposed sites of Ur of the Chaldees, which, however, is now almost unanimously found in Hur, the most important of the early capitals of Chaldæa, the present-day Mugheir, at no great distance from the mouth and six miles to the west of the Euphrates. That Stephen’s statement does not contradict Genesis. (Act_12:1), which places the call of Abraham at Haran (Holtzmann) may be inferred from these facts—
(1) that Gen_15:7 and Neh_9:7 both represent Ur of the Chaldees as the locality in which Abraham received Jehovah’s call, and
(2) that with these both Josephus and Philo agree. There is nothing unreasonable in supposing the call to have been given twice, first in Ur and again in Haran.
Act_7:4. When his father was dead.—If Abraham was Terah’s firstborn (Gen_11:26), and seventy-five when he departed from Haran (Gen_12:4), then Terah could only have been one hundred and forty-five years old at his death, whereas, according to Gen_11:32, Terah was two hundred and five when he died, and must have survived Abraham’s departure from Haran by sixty years; but if Abraham was Terah’s youngest son, and born in Terah’s one hundred and thirtieth year, which, according to the Hebrew narrative, is not impossible, then as Abraham was seventy-five years old when he migrated from Haran, Terah must have been two hundred and five when he died—which agrees with Stephen’s narrative. For he removed the best texts read (God) removed him.
Act_7:5. None inheritance in it.—Not contradicted by Abraham’s purchase of the field and cave at Machpelah (Gen_23:9-11), which were meant for “a possession” of a burying place but not for an inheritance in the strict sense of the term.
Act_7:6. Four hundred years.—If Stephen included in these four centuries the whole period of sojourning, bondage, and oppression, exactly as Jehovah did in Genesis (Act_15:13), this seems to be at variance with Paul’s reckoning of the interval between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law as four hundred and thirty years (Gal_3:17), which interval again is represented in Exodus (Exo_12:40) as “the sojourning of Israel who dwelt in Egypt.” Assuming that four hundred may have been a round number for four hundred and thirty, the difficulty remains how to harmonise the statements of Stephen and Paul. If, according to Paul, the interval from Abraham to Moses was four hundred and thirty years, then, inasmuch as Isaac was born twenty-five years after the promise was first given, and was sixty years old at the birth of Jacob, who was one hundred and thirty years of age when he stood before Pharaoh, then 430 − (25 + 60 + 130) = 215, which leaves only two hundred, and fifteen for the years of exile, bondage, and oppression. Either, therefore, Stephen, following the LXX. version of Exo_12:40, which inserts “in the land of Canaan” after “in the land of Egypt, designed his four hundred years to embrace the same period as Paul’s four hundred and thirty indicate—a view supported by Josephus (Ant., II. xv. 2), or he followed Gen_15:13, and understood the four hundred to refer to the Egyptian sojourn, bondage, and oppression, in which case he is again supported by Josephus (Ant., II. ix. 1; Wars, V. ix. 4), who gives both views, but not by Paul. It would remove all appearance of contrariety if Gen_15:13 signified by “a land not theirs,” Canaan as well as Egypt; if this cannot be done, then at the worst Paul and Stephen must be held to have followed different traditions.
Act_7:7. They shall come forth and serve Me in this place.—“They shall come hither again” of Gen_15:16 is replaced by “and serve Me in this place,” suggested by rather than borrowed from Exo_3:2, in which the words are “ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” Stephen, unintentionally mixing up the passages in Genesis and Exodus, may not have been hindered by the Spirit, because the sentiment he expressed was correct; or under the Spirit’s guidance he may have selected the new clause suggested by Exodus to explain the import of the one in Genesis.
Act_7:8. The covenant of circumcision.—I.e., of which circumcision was the sign. See Rom_4:11. The twelve patriarchs.—I.e., the twelve sons of Jacob as the founders of the tribes or heads of the families of Israel. The term also applied to Abraham (Heb_7:4) and to David (Act_2:29).
Act_7:9. Moved with envy, or jealousy, they, the patriarchs, sold Joseph into Egypt—i.e., to be carried thither. Stephen condenses the Genesis narrative.
Act_7:10. The Pharaoh under whom Joseph rose to power was the last of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, Apophis, who, not being himself a native Egyptian, might feel disposed to favour the Hebrew stranger who had in so remarkable a manner interpreted his dreams and saved the country.
Act_7:11. A dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan.—Brugsch, Sayce, and others find this dearth in a famine, which, according to an inscription from a nobleman’s tomb at Eileythia in Southern Egypt, prevailed in the land for several years, and during which the dead man (Baba), according to the inscription, “distributed corn to the city each year of famine.” Baba, the nobleman in question, is supposed to have lived shortly before the establishment of the eighteenth dynasty. Counting four hundred and thirty years back from B.C. 1325, when Menephtah II. ascended the Egyptian throne, gives the reign of Apophis as the commencement of the exile according to Stephen, as the date of the promise according to Paul. (But see above on Act_7:6.)
Act_7:14. Threescore and fifteen souls.—So the LXX. in Gen_46:27; but the Hebrew text of Gen_46:27; Exo_1:5, and Deu_10:22 gives threescore and ten as the number of souls that went down into Egypt—i.e., the sixty-six of Gen_46:26 with four (Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh) added. The additional five were probably Joseph’s grandsons, counted by the LXX. as among his sons. Stephen, a Hellenist, most likely followed the LXX. without deeming it necessary to correct what after all was no mis-statement, if “sons” be taken in the wider sense of descendants.
Act_7:16. Carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money.—Two historical inaccuracies are commonly discovered here:
1. That Jacob and the fathers were all buried at Sychem, or Shechem, Abraham’s earliest settlement in Canaan (Gen_12:6-7); whereas Jacob was interred at Hebron (Gen_1:13), and only Joseph’s bones were laid in Sychem (Jos_24:32), Scripture being silent as to where those of the other fathers were deposited.
2. That Abraham purchased a sepulchre at Shechem from the sons of Emmor, or Hamor, for a sum of money, or for a price in silver; whereas the tomb Abraham bought was at Hebron, while the seller was Ephron the Hittite (Gen_23:16), and Jacob’s purchase was of a field at Shechem (Gen_33:19), in which afterwards Joseph’s bones were interred (Jos_24:32). As to the first part of Stephen’s statement that Jacob and the fathers were all carried over into Shechem and laid in a tomb, nothing can invalidate that. If Stephen must be understood as asserting that all were laid in the same tomb, that was not so, since Jacob was buried at Hebron and Joseph at Sychem, unless it can be shown that Joseph’s bones were subsequently reinterred in the patriarchal vault at Hebron—a hypothesis not impossible, certainly, but still not capable of proof. If, further, Stephen purposed to affirm that Abraham bought a tomb at Shechem, this can only be harmonised with Genesis by maintaining that the tomb at Shechem was purchased twice—once by Abraham and afterwards by Jacob, which is not a likely supposition. The suggestion that Abraham has been either substituted in the text for Jacob, or inserted in the text which originally had no nominative to the verb “purchased,” is rendered inadmissible by all existing MSS. having Abraham. Yet if Jacob were inserted every difficulty would not vanish. It would still remain impossible to maintain that Jacob was interred at Shechem. Could Stephen himself be recalled, it might be possible to solve this problem; in his absence it must be given up, at least till additional data be forthcoming. On the ground of this unsolved problem it would be rash to challenge the inspiration of either Stephen or Luke.
Act_7:18. Another king which knew not Joseph.—This was Aahmes, the first monarch of the eighteenth dynasty, “a prince of great force of character, brave, active, energetic, liberal, beloved by his subjects” (Rawlinson, The Story of the Nations—Egypt, p. 152).
Act_7:19. Dealt subtilly with our kindred, or race.—With Aahmes the new policy towards the Israelites may have begun, but the author of the cruel decree appears to have been Seti I., while Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Menephtah II. the Pharaoh of the Exodus. They cast out.—Pharaoh’s object in the oppression appears to have been to render the lives of the Israelites so miserable that they would rather cast out their offspring than see them grow up to experience such woe as themselves endured. If he be read instead of they, then the well-known decree (Exo_1:16-22) is that to which Stephen alludes.
Act_7:22. Learned.—Better, trained or instructed.
Act_7:24. Suffer wrong, injured, by beating (Exo_2:11). The wrongdoer may have been one of Pharaoh’s taskmasters. A bas-relief recovered from the Nile Valley exhibits one of these standing over a gang of slaves, whip in hand, and saying as he lashes them, “To your work, O slaves: ye are idle!”
Act_7:25. He supposed should be he was supposing, meaning that was his habitual mood of mind at this period. Would deliver them should be gives them deliverance or salvation; the present tense signifying either that the deliverance was at hand or was beginning with the blow then struck.
Act_7:29. Madian, or Midian.—In the south-east of the Sinaitic peninsula.
Act_7:30. Mount Sinai.—Exodus (Exo_3:1) gives, as the scene of this Divine manifestation, Horeb, which was probably the name of the range, Sinai being the designation of the particular peak (Robinson, Eadie), though others regard Sinai as the range and Horeb as the peak. Whether Sinai, the mountain of the Law, was Jebel Serbal (Burckhardt, Lepsius, and Ebers), or Ras-es-Sufsafeh (Robinson, Stanley, Porter), or Jebel Musa (Wilson, Sandie), travellers are not decided. Josephus (Ant., II. xi. 1) and Paul (Gal_4:25) locate it in Arabia, which Sayce thinks to a writer of the first century would mean Arabia Petræa. Wherefore he looks for Sinai not in the peninsula, but among the ranges of Mount Seir in the neighbourhood of Kadesh Barnea (see The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 263–373).
In Act_7:32-33 the order of the Hebrew text is transposed.
Act_7:35. A deliverer, or redeemer, λυτρωτήν.—A latent allusion to the work of Christ.
Act_7:36. After that he had showed should be having done or wrought.
Act_7:37. The Lord your are omitted in best MSS. Like unto me might be rendered as he raised up me.
Act_7:38. The Church.—The use of ἐκκλησία—a term employed by the LXX. (Deu_18:16; Deu_23:1; Psa_26:12)—for the congregation of Israel warrants the inference that Stephen at least regarded the Hebrew nation as a church and the new assembly of believers as its representative under the Christian dispensation.
Act_7:41. They made a calf is one word in the original. The calf, or bullock, was selected in imitation of the Egyptians, who worshipped an ox, Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis.
Act_7:42. In the book of the prophets.—The quotation is from Amo_5:25-27. The interrogation, Have ye offered unto Me? etc., is much used by the higher criticism to prove that the sacrificial system of the so-styled priest code had no existence in the time of Moses; but the prophet’s meaning is not that the Israelites did not offer sacrifices to Jehovah in the wilderness, but that, though they did, their hearts ran after their idolatries—the worship of Moloch and the Star Rephan—so that Jehovah rejected their insincere service.
Act_7:43. The tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Remphan.—The Hebrew might be rendered Siccuth your king and Chiun (or the shrine of) your images, the star of your god (R.V.), Siccuth being in this case the name of one idol which the Hebrews worshipped as their king, and Chiun the name of another, believed to have been the planet Saturn, of which the name among the Syrians and Arabians was Kçwân. Stephen, however, followed the LXX., who understood Siccuth as equivalent to “tabernacle”—i.e., the portable tent in which the idol’s image was carried—and for “your king” substituted, with some ancient MSS., Moloch, the idol meant; while for “Chiun your images” they read “the star of your god Rephan,” which Kircher believes to be Koptic for Saturn, and Schrader regards as a corruption from Kewan. That the LXX. failed to intelligibly translate the second Hebrew clause was of small moment to Stephen. The words, “the star of the god,” showed that God had given the Israelites up to worship the host of heaven. The substitution of Babylon for Damascus in the Hebrew and the LXX. is explainable by the fact that Babylon had long been associated in Jewish history with the exile.
Act_7:44. The tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness was so called because it contained the Ark in which the two tables of the Decalogue were kept (Num_11:15; Num_17:13).
Act_7:45. Our fathers that came after should be simply our fathers. Jesus is Joshua, as in Heb_4:8. Into (lit. in) the possession of the Gentiles.—Meaning that the Ark was brought in to remain in the possession of the nations—i.e., in their land. The R.V. reads, “When they entered on the possession of the nations”; lit. “at” or “in” their taking possession of (the land of) the nations.
Act_7:46. Tabernacle should be “habitation,” permanent abode, like “house” in Act_7:47.
Act_7:48. The prophet was Isaiah (Isa_66:1-2).
Act_7:52. Which of the prophets, etc., echoed the words of Christ (Mat_5:12; Mat_23:31; Luk_13:34).
Act_7:53. By the disposition of the angels is better rendered in the R.V., as it was ordained by angels, or as ordinances of angels; lit. unto ordinances of angels. Compare Gal_3:19 and Heb_2:2.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_7:1-53
The Apology of Stephen; or, a Vindication of Christianity
I. To whom it was addressed.—
1. The Jewish Sanhedrim, consisting of Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and perhaps also Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, if the last two had not by this time withdrawn from the conclave. The court that had already condemned the apostles (Act_7:27) was little likely to give a fair hearing to the eloquent deacon.
2. The Jewish people generally. Through their official representatives, with whom at this moment they were acting in sympathy and concert.
3. All whom in after ages it might concern. Though this presumably entered not into Stephen’s, it without doubt formed part of the Holy Spirit’s mind.
II. In what spirit it was spoken.—
1. With affection. Hinted at by the term “brethren” with which Stephen saluted his judges and accusers. A sign of goodness as well as greatness on the part of Stephen that he disowned not kinship with the truculent adversaries who were then thirsting for his blood.
2. With reverence. Not forgetting the respect due to the elders of his people, he courteously addressed them as “fathers.” No man ever injures his cause by rendering honour to whom honour is due.
III. Of what statements it was composed.—
1. A historical retrospect. The drama of Israel’s career was opened out in three successive acts.
(1) The age of the Patriarchs before Moses (Act_7:2-16); or the age of the promise, rehearsing the story of Abraham’s call by the God of Glory first from Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldees) and afterwards from Haran, to go into the Land of Canaan. This call the patriarch obeyed, only to find that God, who had promised to bestow Canaan for possession, on himself and on his seed after him, when as yet he had no child, actually gave him in it none inheritance. Rather God predicted that before his descendants should come into their heritage they should be bondmen in a strange land for four hundred years. At the same time, in pledge that the promise would be fulfilled and the land kept for its appointed heirs, the God of glory gave to the patriarch the covenant of circumcision, which was handed on from sire to son, till in Jacob’s days events began to move in the direction of bringing together the heirs and the inheritance. Joseph, his father’s favourite son, was sold into Egypt by his envious brethren, who also by a singular combination of circumstances some time later, in a season of famine, repaired thither to find the brother they had evil entreated governor over all the land. At his invitation Jacob, with his kindred, numbering threescore and fifteen souls, went down into Egypt, where they died and left behind them children, in what was soon to become for them a house of bondage. With that closed the first act in the drama.
(2) The age of Moses (Act_7:17-46); or, the age of the law, sketching the career of Moses in three periods of forty years. “Three generations rolled over him,” writes Emil Zittel (Die Entstehung der Bibel, p. 40). “Three times he lived through the holy number of forty years; as son of Egyptian wisdom, as shepherd of the wilderness, as emancipator of his people.” Of these periods the first began during the currency of Israel’s oppression, and, embracing the lawgiver’s birth and education in the house of Pharaoh, ended with his flight into Midian (Act_7:17-29). The second closed with the appearance to him in the Wilderness of Sinai, of an angel of God, and his subsequent departure into Egypt to lead forth his people from captivity, which he successfully accomplished (Act_7:30-36). The third opened with the Exodus, included the wilderness wanderings, and terminated with the entrance into Canaan under Joshua (Act_7:37-45).
(3) The Age of the Prophets; or, the Age of the Temple (Act_7:46-53), telling the brief but simple tale of David’s proposal to find a habitation for the God of Jacob, and of Solomon’s building Him a house, in which indeed Jehovah was formally worshipped, while outside His prophets were disobeyed and persecuted.
2. An implied representation. Of the history of Jesus, which had its obvious parallel and prefigurement in the just recited career of the nation.
(1) Like Joseph whom his brethren sold for envy, but whom Jehovah delivered and appointed to be their preserver, Christ—though Stephen leaves this unexpressed—had been rejected by them, yea even sold into the hands of His enemies and put to death, raised up by God, exalted to the highest throne in heaven, made Lord of all and sent to be their Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins.
(2) Like Moses, whom his countrymen understood not and resisted, but who afterwards led them forth to liberty, Christ had come unto His own, who likewise knew Him not, but thrust Him from them, and was coming again to offer them emancipation from sin and death.
(3) Like the men who in the wilderness preferred the tabernacle of Moloch to that Jehovah had caused to be constructed for them, and like their descendants who desecrated the temple by carrying on within its sacred precincts, in defiance of the warnings of Jehovah’s prophets, heathen orgies instead of the legitimate Jehovah worship, so had they defiled, desecrated, and despised the true tabernacle and temple of Jehovah, even Jesus of Nazareth, and preferred to Him the lifeless stones of the material edifice, and the meaningless service of an effete ritual.
IV. With what arguments it was charged.—
1. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with the law. This could not be:
(1) Because the God of Glory had appeared unto the father of the nation in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran (Act_7:2). If a theophany or Divine manifestation be the basis of all acceptable worship, as the law itself says (Exo_22:24), then clearly such worship did not originate at Sinai but at Ur of the Chaldees, and not with Moses but with Abraham.
(2) Because the promise of a Messiah, admittedly the kernel of Mosaism, was given to Abraham when as yet he had no child and therefore no descendants on whom to enjoin the law (Act_7:5).
(3) Because the covenant of circumcision in which all Israelites gloried as of the essence of their law was not of Moses but of Abraham (Act_7:8; compare Joh_7:22).
(4) Because the presence of God with His people to protect and deliver them, which was what pious Jews understood by salvation, did not begin with His coming down to talk with them at Sinai, but had been enjoyed by Joseph in Egypt (Act_7:10), and by Joseph’s father and brethren through him (Act_7:14-15).
2. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with Moses. This it could not be:
(1) Because when Moses first offered himself to his countrymen, in Jehovah’s name, as a deliverer, they would not receive him but thrust him from them (Act_7:23-29).
(2) Because Moses himself, who had been miraculously called and strengthened to effect their temporal deliverance, had distinctly pointed them to a greater prophet than himself, even to Jesus, though Stephen leaves this supplementary thought unspoken (Act_7:30-37).
(3) Because though Moses had been the medium of conveying to Israel the “living oracles,” or oracles of life received from Jehovah, he could not secure Israel’s obedience to these, even at the moment when Israel was encamped in Jehovah’s presence (Act_7:38-41).
3. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with the temple. This once more was impossible:
(1) Because in the wilderness the tabernacle, which was the shadow of the temple, could not retain the allegiance of the people to Jehovah. Instead of offering to Jehovah slain beasts and sacrifices at the tabernacle door, they took up the tent of Moloch and carried about the star of the god Remphan (Act_7:42-43).
(2) Because the temple was never meant to be anything more than an emblem of Jehovah’s true habitation, as saith the prophet, “The heaven is My throne,” etc. (Act_7:46-50).
(3) Because the existence of the temple could not keep Israel’s fathers from resisting the Holy Ghost and murdering Jehovah’s prophets (Act_7:51-52).
4. Against supposing that the true worship of Jehovah was bound up with them. They had certainly been honoured above all peoples, had received the law as ordained by—i.e., as it were, at the hands of angels, had listened to the voices of Jehovah’s prophets showing before the coming of the Righteous One—i.e., of Messiah—and had enjoyed the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts, and yet to what had all these gracious privileges led? They had not kept the law except in the letter, and not always that; they had not believed in Jehovah’s prophets but persecuted and killed them, the last and greatest of them having been the righteous One of whom they had just been the betrayers and murderers; and they had not yielded to but resisted the Holy Ghost. Was it not then idle to assert or suppose that they were the representatives of the true Jehovah-worship? Such was the spirit of Stephen’s address.
V. To what results it conducted.—
1. For his hearers.
(1) Conviction of guilt. They were cut to the heart, pierced to the quick, sawn asunder with inward pain because of inability to deny the truth of Stephen’s charges.
(2) Rage against their prisoner, at whom they snarled and snapped with their teeth like angry wolves, impatient to devour their prey, because his cutting invective, penetrating to their consciences, had brought their guilt to remembrance.
2. For himself. A violent death and a martyr’s crown—a large recompense for a short service; a brief shame followed by a long fame; a little loss and then an eternal gain (see on Act_7:54-60).
Learn.—
1. That an eloquent and able defence is not always followed by a verdict of acquital.
2. That it does not always conduce to one’s personal safety to tell the truth.
3. That judges are not always open to the force of sound reasoning.
4. That opponents defeated in argument are seldom merciful.
5. That the sins of one age are often repeated in the next.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act_7:1-53. The Speech of Stephen.
I. A masterpiece of sacred eloquence.
II. A witness to the truth of Old Testament history.
III. A testimony to the sustaining power of religion.
IV. A proof of the reality of divine inspiration.
V. A noble vindication of Jesus Christ.
VI. A striking anticipation of Pauline universalism.
NOTE.—On the Historical Credibility of this Speech.—That this speech was not really uttered by Stephen, but freely composed by a late author (Baur, Zeller Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, and others) has been argued on the following grounds:
1. “That it takes so little notice of the special accusation against which Stephen defends himself” (Baur, Paul, his Life and Work, vol. i., p. 44). But in this Stephen only showed how entirely absorbed he was in vindicating his Master rather than in excusing himself. Besides, that his speech should have this appearance is a powerful indirect testimony to its genuineness, since its composer, had it not been Stephen, would have been sure to have avoided this appearance of incongruity.
2. That it contains historical inaccuracies, as, e.g., about the call of Abraham (Act_7:2), the burial of the patriarchs (Act_7:16), and the duration of the Egyptian bondage (Act_7:6). But the so-called inaccuracies are susceptible of reasonable explanation; and, even if they were not, could only be urged against the inspiration of the speech, and not against its genuineness. If the composer of the speech could err, so also might Stephen, assuming that he was not inspired.
3. That it discovers verbal and material points of contact with the discourses of Peter and Paul (Overbeck, Weizsäcker, Supernatural Religion, iii., 145–178); but exactly this is what one should have expected from Stephen, who was the contemporary of these men, and believed the same facts and doctrines as they did.
4. That it goes far beyond the standpoint of Paul in teaching the spirituality of worship (Act_7:38; Act_7:48), and seems rather to belong to later Christian Alexandrinism (Holtzmann); but this is an altogether unwarranted assertion, since Paul quite as clearly teaches that God can be rightly worshipped only in the Spirit (Act_17:24; Eph_2:21-22; Php_3:3).
5. That the riotous proceeding against Stephen renders it “improbable there was any transaction at all before the Sanhedrim” (Baur, i. 56). This, however, is simply turning criticism into ridicule; as if the Jewish Sanhedrim never overstepped its legitimate powers, and was always a law-abiding court. Credat Judæus!
6. That there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the historian put this speech into Stephen’s mouth (Baur, i. 56). But inasmuch as the speech is admitted to have “well suited the character of Stephen,” and to be “correctly stamped with his declared religious views,” it is much easier to suppose that Stephen himself delivered it than that Luke or another composed it.
7. That there is difficulty in understanding how the speech would or could be taken down in court. But even if Paul did not make notes of it at the time (Baumgarten), the memories of some who heard of it might not be unequal to the task of its preservation. Examples of remarkable memories are not wanting either in ancient or in modern times.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 9, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 54, 55, 59 1-7. Despite the awful doom of the antediluvians, the…
EXPATRIATION
1-7. Despite the awful doom of the antediluvians, the people after the flood soon became terribly wicked. While they constantly ploughed up the bones of their antediluvian predecessors, fear and trembling appalled them so they were constantly resolving to be good. Ah! the road to hell is strewn with good resolutions. The postdiluvians had inherited evil hearts from their predecessors. Hence a wicked life inevitably followed, as it always will unless we go to God and receive a new heart. Despite the grand boom given to holiness in the flood, when all of the wicked were taken out of the world and righteousness ruled the only surviving home, yet wickedness so increased that God found it necessary in the third postdiluvian century to begin de novo, calling Abraham to leave the world and identify himself with God alone. In the home of his childhood, in the beautiful alluvial plains of Mesopotamia, that delightful rich, level country between the Tigris and the Euphrates, the cradle of the postdiluvian world, first settled by the sons of Noah after the deluge, where at a later date Nimrod gave himself imperishable notoriety by attempting to found a human government independently of the Almighty (though nowadays all the governments on the globe are Nimrodic without a blush). Such was the wickedness of his native land that God required Abraham to leave his kindred and country and follow whither He led. This is now and has ever been the first step in a true heavenly pilgrimage. A prophet is without honor in his own country. Expatriation as a rule is a sine qua non in a really fruitful ministry for God and souls.
Read full note →
“Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathomed caves of Ocean bear; Full many a flower is born to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”
As a rule, you must leave your native land if you would be eminently useful.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 I. The wandering of the Israelites was all a…
Act 7:44
I. The wandering of the Israelites was all a parable. It was, if we may trust apostolic teachings, all a Divine shadow of that great invisible and spiritual society, the yet more mysterious Ecclesia, "the Church throughout all ages" on its mighty march through time, with all its attendant omens and prodigies,—for such is the Church everywhere, a witness in the wilderness; such, indeed, is the Church; such are all its varieties of ordinance. It is the perpetual remonstrance against the sufficiency of the seen and temporal; it is a perpetual witness for the unseen and eternal; it is a perpetual testimony for the existence of a spiritual perpetuity and continuity; it is a mysterious procession; infinite aspirations are infused in the soul of man. The tabernacle of the testimony is the story of the Church and the soul—a witness for faith. A world with no tabernacle of Divine testimony has a philosophy which only sees the worst, which goes on declaring its dreary monologue that this is the worst of all possible worlds, that sleep is better than waking, and death is better than sleep. In the presence of such thoughts, the sky shuts down upon us, there is no motive in life; as Emerson well says, "This low and hopeless spirit puts out the eyes, and such scepticism is slow suicide."
Read full note →
II. The pulpit has been through all the fluctuating ages a tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness. The pulpit is like that ancient tabernacle of my text,—it rests, but it moves: it rests in the ancient truths it was instituted to announce. Christ is final; and, as has been truly said, "Christianity is a fixed quantity, not a fluxion, and Jesus Christ is all in all"; it is a spiritual universe; it has its immense and infinite announcements, which, like the definitions of mathematics and the numbers of arithmetic, are unchangeable and final—we cannot go beyond them. We need no new Messiah; we shall find no wiser teacher, no more sufficient Saviour in any time to come. Christianity is complete, like the round globe and the blue sky. In giving to us the principles of the ultimate law of morality, He has exhausted the moral world of its treasures when He proclaims God for our Father. But what an unlimited progress is there in men’s ideas and sentiments, and their application to religion; and should not the pulpit be the tabernacle of testimony to these, for the ideas of Christianity are progressive in the human mind? It is not the speculator but God Himself who goeth forth with our armies, who bids us to strike the tent and march forward to some spot where the future shall fulfil itself even as the past has been fulfilled.
E. Paxton Hood, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiii., p. 233
Act 7:47-50
The Temples of God.
Note:—
I. The physical creation. "Heaven is My throne; and earth is My footstool. Hath not My hand made these things?" These words refer directly to the material creation, and imply that God fashioned the heaven and the earth to be a temple to Himself, in which He might manifest His glory.
II. The second creation, or Judaism. God became nearer man in Judaism than in the material creation. He was pleased to concentrate the symbol of His presence in one special locality, first in the Tabernacle, afterwards in the Temple. The Temple on Moriah was not the goal, it was only a stage in the onward march of the Divine economies.
III. The third creation, or Christianity. Christianity is described in prophecy as a "stone cut out of the mountain without hands." God’s proper templets holy humanity, and under the Christian dispensation He has found the temple He so earnestly coveted.
J. Cynddylan Jones, Studies in the Acts, p. 159.
References: Act 7:51.—Parker, City Temple, vol. iii., p. 445. Act 7:51-53.—S. A. Brooke, Sermons, p. 164. Act 7:54-60.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 422. Act 7:55, Act 7:56. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 740; H. Melvill, Voices of the Year, vol. i., p. 58; E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 147.
Act 7:56
The Witnesses for the Glorified Son of Man.
I. When Stephen spoke the words of our text, the truth which he had been proclaiming in all his discourse, which he had perceived to be the subject and climax of all revelation, presented itself to him just as actually as any visible thing presents itself to the eye. It was not a doctrine of the Incarnation which he acknowledged in that hour—a mere doctrine would have stood him in little stead. It was a person who stood before him, a person upon whom he might call, in whom he might trust; he was sure that it was life and substance he was in contact with, not hard forms of the understanding. It was a Son of man on the right hand of God, an actual mediator between man and God, one in whom God could look well pleased upon man, in whom man could look up to God and be at peace. Was it not an opening of heaven which disclosed such a union of manhood with Godhead? Did not that opening of heaven foreshadow a shaking of all religions—of all polities upon earth—which stood on some other foundation than this?
II. St. Stephen’s witness is the witness which the Church of God is to bear upon earth. The true martyr—the martyr who deserves honour and reverence from men—bears that witness and no other. Religious bodies are wrong only in pretending that they have been faithful stewards of the Divine message of men; that their divisions, hatreds, persecutions, have not marred it, broken it, inverted it; that each has not often been used by the wisdom of God to bring forth some witness of it which the other has suppressed or mangled; that there has not been a cry rising out of the depths of the human heart—often a cry of bitter wailing and cursing against them all—which has also, if we interpret it according to the teachings of Scripture, the same significance. Judging according to human calculations, there never was a time when such men as Stephen were more demanded, or were less likely to appear. But we are not to judge according to human calculations. This is God’s own cause, and He will take care of it. In places of which we know nothing, by processes of education which we cannot guess, He may have been preparing His witnesses. They will speak with power to the hearts of men who need a Son of man. They will be sure, even when their own vision is weakest, that the heavens will one day be opened, and that the Son of man will be revealed to the whole universe at His Father’s right hand.
F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. v., p. 59.
References: Act 7:56-60.—T. de Witt Talmage, Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 56; E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 165. Act 7:57, Act 7:60.—Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 428. Act 7:58.—Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, Gospels and Acts, p. 186. Act 7:59.—J. Pulsford, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 111; Parker, Cavendish Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 181.
Act 7:59-60
Note:—
I. The faith of Stephen. How was it manifested, and in what respect may we seek to imitate it? Now, I think we may say that as his faith was seen in every part of his trial, so most remarkably in the manner in which he faced death. It was seen in that upward looking of his soul to God in the hour of deepest suffering; it was proved by the cry which he then uttered, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." These words, spoken at such a time, must be regarded as the strongest evidence to the reality and soundness of Stephen’s faith. They show us that he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. Let us also be prepared beforehand. Let us try now and examine our faith. Do not expect to find comfort from it at the last, unless you have proved and tested it in the course and conduct of your common life. Calls for such proof are daily occurring. We have all periods of sorrow; we are all tried by many infirmities; we are all subject to the loss of health, and to the loss of friends. When such things happen unto us, then is the trial of our faith. Let us take them as sent for our good, our portion of the cross, and let us bear cheerfully our burden; ever amidst the present distress let our eye look steadfastly towards heaven.
II. The charity of Stephen. It was of that kind so commended by the Apostle; that which beareth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Martyr as he was, his death had not been that tranquil sleep in the Lord which now it is, had he carried with him to the grave one thought of harm, one feeling of revenge against his persecutors. But then, neither can our death be tranquil except on the same terms. It is not safe for any man to die at enmity with his fellow. Nay, more. It is not safe for any man to live at enmity with his fellow. The very charter by which we hold the promise of God’s pardon is that we pardon our brother his trespasses.
H. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 4th series, p. 110.
The Martyrdom of Stephen.
I. The first question that we must ask ourselves in reading this story is, "What is the secret of all this meekness and of all this bravery? How came Stephen to be thus self-possessed before the frowning Sanhedrim, fearless amidst that excited multitude in his home-thrusts of truth, brave in the crisis of trial, forgiving at the moment of death?" Men are not born thus. As we mentally put ourselves into his circumstances, we feel that no physical hardihood, no endowment of natural bravery, could sustain us. There must have been some Divine bestowment, in order to secure this undaunted heroism and this supreme tenderness of love. Then, was it a miraculous gift, reserved for some specially commissioned and specially chosen man, or is it the common heritage of all mankind? These are questions that become interesting as we dwell upon the developments of holy character that are presented to us in the life of Stephen. The secret lies in the delineation of the man. He was "a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost." He did not leap into this character in a moment; he did not spring, fully armed, as Minerva is fabled to have sprung from the brain of Jupiter. There was no mystic charm by which the Graces clustered around him. He had faith, and that faith was the gift of God to him, as it is the gift of God to us. He had the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and that indwelling is promised to us, as to him, by the blood-shedding of our Surety and Saviour. The only difference between us and him is that he grasped the blessing with a holier boldness and lived habitually in a closer communion with God.
II. The lot of the Christian is, ordinarily, an inheritance of persecution. There was nothing in the character of Stephen to arouse any special hostility. He was reputed learned and honourable, he had refinement of manner, and as the Church’s almoner his office was benevolent and kind. But he was faithful, and his reproofs stung his adversaries to the quick. He was consistent, and his life was a perpetual rebuke to those who lived otherwise. He was unanswerable, and that was a crime too great to be forgiven, and so they stoned Stephen. And persecution has been the lot of the Church in all ages.
III. I gather thirdly from this subject that strength and grace are always given most liberally when they are most needed. With special and onerous duty there came to Stephen specially replenished supply. How it rushed in upon him when he needed it! He went into that fierce council unprepared; but how it came upon him—the grace, the strength, the manliness, the utterance—just as he required it, and lighting up, making him so translucent, so to speak, with glory, that, breaking through the serge and sackcloth of his humiliation, the inner glory mantled out upon the countenance as the morning mantles upon the sky! "As thy days, so shall thy strength be."
IV. We gather from the narrative that death is not death to a believer in Jesus.
"Brutal oaths and frantic yells
And curses loud and deep"—
these were the lullaby that sang him to his dreamless slumber. But when God wills a man to sleep, it does not matter how much noise there is around him. "He giveth His beloved sleep."
W. M. Punshon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 385.
References: Act 7:59, Act 7:60.—P. Robertson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 179; J. C. Jones, Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 385; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1175; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. v., p. 31. Act 7:60.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 148; C. J. Vaughan, Church of the First Days, vol. i., p. 261; Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 112. Acts 7—E. G. Gibson, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 425; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 213. Act 8:1.—H. P. Liddon, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 366; Ibid., Thoughts on Present Church Troubles, p. 63; Ibid., Sermons, vol. ii., No. 1132. Act 8:2.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 283; E. M. Goulburn, Acts of the Deacons, p. 189; Bishop Simpson, Sermons, p. 421.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv56, 58, 59
Acts
STEPHEN’S VISION
Read full note →
Act 7:56.
I. The vision of the Son of Man, or the abiding manhood of Jesus.
Stephen’s Greek name, and his belonging to the Hellenistic part of the Church, make it probable that he had never seen Jesus during His earthly life. If so, how beautiful that he should thus see and recognise Him! How significant, in any case, is it he should instinctively have taken on his lips that name, ‘the Son of Man,’ to designate Him whom he saw, through the opened heavens, standing on the right hand of God! We remember that in the same Council-chamber and before the same court, Jesus had lashed the rulers into a paroxysm of fury by declaring, ‘Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power,’ and now here is one of His followers, almost, as it were, flinging in their teeth the words which they had called ‘blasphemy,’ and witnessing that he, at all events, saw their partial fulfilment. They saw only the roof of the chamber, or, if the Council met in the open court of the Temple, the quivering blue of the Syrian sky; but to him the blue was parted, and a brighter light than that of its lustre was flashed upon his inward eye. His words roused them to an even wilder outburst than those of Jesus had set loose, and with yells of fury, and stopping their ears that they might not hear the blasphemy, they flung themselves on him, unresisting, and dragged him to his doom. Their passion is a measure of the preciousness to the Christian consciousness of that which Stephen saw, and said that he saw.
Whatever more the great designation, ‘Son of Man,’ means, it unmistakably means the embodiment of perfect manhood. Stephen’s vision swept into his soul, as on a mighty wave, the fact, overwhelming if it had not been so transcendently strengthening to the sorely bestead prisoner, that the Jesus whom he had trusted unseen, was still the same Jesus that He had been ‘in the days of His flesh,’ and, with whatever changes, still was ‘found in fashion as a man.’ He still ‘bent on earth a brother’s eye.’ Whatever He had dropped from Him as He ascended, His manhood had not fallen away, and, whatever changes had taken place in His body so as to fit it for its enthronement in the heavens, all that had knit Him to His humble friends on earth was still His. The bonds that united Him and them had not been snapped by being stretched to span the distance between the Council-chamber and the right hand of God. His sympathy still continued. All that had won their hearts was still in Him, and every tender remembrance of His love and leading was transformed into the assurance of a present possession. He was still the Son of Man.
We are all too apt to feel as if the manhood of Jesus was now but a memory, and, though our creed affirms the contrary, yet our faith has difficulty in realising the full force and blessedness of its affirmations. For the Resurrection and Ascension seem to remove Him from close contact with us, and sometimes we feel as if we stretch out groping fingers into the dark and find no warm human hand to grasp. His exaltation seems to withdraw Him from our brotherhood, and the cloud, though it is a cloud of glory, sometimes seems to hide Him from our sight. The thickening veil of increasing centuries becomes more and more difficult for faith to pierce. What Stephen saw was not for him only but for us all, and its significance becomes more and more precious as we drift further and further away in time from the days of the life of Jesus on earth. More and more do we need to make very visible to ourselves this vision, and to lay on our hearts the strong consolation of gazing steadfastly into heaven and seeing there the Son of Man. So we shall feel that He is all to us that He was to those who companied with Him here. So shall we be more ready to believe that ‘this same Jesus shall so come in like manner as He went,’ and that till He come, He is knit to us and we to Him, by the bonds of a common manhood.
II. The vision of the Son of Man at the right hand of God, or the glory of the Man Jesus.
We will not discuss curious questions which may be asked in connection with Stephen’s vision, such as whether the glorified humanity of Jesus implies His special presence in a locality; but will rather try to grasp its bearings on topics more directly related to more important matters than dim speculations on points concerning which confident affirmations are sure to be wrong. Whether the representation implies locality or not, it is clear that the deepest meaning of the expression ‘the right hand of God,’ is the energy of His unlimited power, and that, therefore, the deepest meaning of the expression ‘to be at His right hand,’ is wielding the might of the divine Omnipotence. The vision is but the visible confirmation of Jesus’ words, ‘All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth.’
It is to be taken into account that Scripture usually represents the Christ as seated at the right hand of God, and that posture, taken in conjunction with that place, indicates the completion of His work, the majestic calm of His repose, like that creative rest, which did not follow the creative work because the Worker was weary, but because He had fulfilled His ideal. God rested because His work was finished, and was ‘very good.’ So Jesus sits, because He, too, has finished His work on earth. ‘When,’ and because ‘He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of God.’
Further, that place at the right hand of God certifies that He is the Judge.
Further, it is a blessed vision for His children, as being the sure pledge of their glory.
It is a glorious revelation of the capabilities of sinless human nature.
It makes heaven habitable for us.
‘I go to prepare a place for you.’ An emigrant does not feel a stranger in new country, if his elder brother has gone before him, and waits to meet him when he lands. The presence of Jesus makes that dim, heavenly state, which is so hard to imagine, and from which we often feel that even its glories repel, or, at least, do not attract, home to those who love Him. To be where He is, and to be as He is- that is heaven.
III. The vision of the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God, or the ever-ready help of the glorified Jesus.
The divergence of the vision from the usual representation of the attitude of Jesus is not the least precious of its elements. Stephen saw Him ‘standing,’ as if He had risen to His feet to see His servant’s need and was preparing to come to his help.
What a rush of new strength for victorious endurance would flood Stephen’s soul as he beheld his Lord thus, as it were, starting to His feet in eagerness to watch and to succour! He looks down from amid the glory, and His calm repose does not involve passive indifference to His servant’s sufferings. Into it comes full knowledge of all that they bear for Him, and His rest is not the negation of activity on their behalf, but its intensest energy. Just as one of the Gospels ends with a twofold picture, which at first sight seems to draw a sad distinction between the Lord ‘received up into heaven and set down at the right hand of God,’ and His servants left below, who ‘went everywhere, preaching the word,’ but of which the two halves are fused together by the next words, ‘the Lord also working with them,’ so Stephen’s vision brought together the glorified Lord and His servant, and filled the martyr’s soul with the fact that He not only ‘worked,’ but suffered with those who suffered for His sake.
That vision is a transient revelation of an eternal fact. Jesus knows and shares in all that affects His servants. He stands in the attitude to help, and He wields the power of God. He is, as the prophet puts it, ‘the Arm of the Lord,’ and the cry, ‘Awake, O Arm of the Lord!’ is never unanswered. He helps His servants by actually directing the course of Providence for their sakes. He helps by wielding the forces of nature on their behalf. He ‘rebukes kings for their sake, saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm.’ He helps by breathing His own life and strength into them. He helps by disclosing to them the vision of Himself. He helps even when, like Stephen, they are apparently left to the murderous hate of their enemies, for what better help could any of His followers get from Him than that He should, as Stephen prayed that He would, receive their spirit, and ‘so give His beloved sleep’? Blessed they whose lives are lighted by that Vision, and whose deaths are such a falling on sleep!
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Defence and Martyrdom of Stephen
Defence and Martyrdom of Stephen
1-53. Speech of Stephen. There is every reason to believe that this speech was really delivered by St. Stephen, and not composed by St. Luke; for, (1) the speech does not (in any direct manner) answer the charges alleged (Act_6:14), as a speech composed by the historian himself would have done; (2) there are several erroneous references to the OT. (not all due to the use of LXX), natural enough in a speech delivered impromptu, but not natural in a speech composed deliberately. St. Paul who heard the speech probably reported it to St. Luke.
Read full note →
The exact point of the speech, and how it is intended to be an answer to the charges (Act_6:14), is disputed. It would appear, however, that the great length at which the history of the Jews is related, is intended to show that Stephen was not a blasphemer of God but as firm a believer in the OT. as his accusers. He gives a particular account of Moses (Act_7:20-44), and declares his firm belief in the divine authority of the Law delivered by him ('the lively oracles,' Act_7:38). He points out, however, that Moses himself predicted the coming of a prophet greater than himself, and that to hear this prophet (whom he identifies with Jesus, Act_7:52) is commanded by the Law itself. Stephen, therefore, who obeys this command of Moses to hear Jesus, is keeping the Law, while his adversaries, who disobey this command, are breaking the Law (Act_7:53). The prophets also predicted the coming of Jesus, and Stephen, who follows Jesus, obeys the prophets, while his adversaries are rebels against them, as their fathers were (Act_7:51-52). The speech contains no reply to the charge of predicting the destruction of the Temple. If the speech had been allowed to be finished, it is probable that it would have closed with a solemn warning that unless his adversaries accepted Jesus as the Messiah, in accordance with the teaching of Moses and the prophets, their city and Temple would be destroyed. The Apology of Stephen may be compared with the Apology of Socrates. Both were delivered, not with the object of gaining an acquittal, but of testifying openly to the truth, and of denouncing the blindness and injustice of the judges.
2. Men, etc.] RV 'Brethren and fathers'; i.e. Israelites, and Sanhedrists. In Mesopotamia] Genesis says nothing of an appearance in Mesopotamia, but such an appearance is implied, Jos_24:2-3; Neh_9:7; (cp. Gen_15:7), and affirmed by Philo.
3. See Gen_12:1, which is mistranslated by the AV, to harmonise with this passage.
4. Charran] i.e. Haran, or Carrhæ, an ancient city of N. Mesopotamia. Here Crassus, the Roman general, was disastrously defeated by the Parthians 53 b.c. See Gen_11:8; Gen_12:4, Gen_12:5.
When his father was dead] According to Genesis (see Gen_11:26, Gen_11:32; Gen_12:4), Terah lived 60 years after his son's migration into Canaan. Stephen's statement is not a mere blunder, but a divergent tradition, found also in Philo, and apparently intended to shield the patriarch from the charge of unfilial conduct, in thus abandoning his aged father.
5. See Gen_12:7; Gen_13:15, etc.
6. See Gen_15:13, Gen_15:16. Four hundred years] so Gen_15:18 more precisely 430 years, Exo_12:40. But there was another tradition which made the 430 years of Exo_12:40 refer to the sojourn of the patriarchs in Palestine and Egypt. This is found in some MSS of the LXX (Exo_12:40); in Josephus, and in Gal_3:17.
7. In this place] in Canaan, not Sinai, as is the case in Exo_3:12.
8. Circumcision] Gen_17:9.
9. See Gen_37:4.
Envy] Stephen sees in Joseph a type of Jesus, and in the envy of his brethren, a type of the envy of the chief priests and scribes which caused the death of Jesus.
14. Threescore and fifteen souls] Stephen follows LXX of Gen_46:27; Exo_1:5. The Hebrew makes the number seventy.
16. There are two errors in this v: (1) Jacob was not buried at Sychem (Shechem), but at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah (Gen_50:13). (2) It was not Abraham, but Jacob, who bought a sepulchre at Shechem, from the sons of Emmor (Hamor), Gen_33:19; Jos_24:32. Either St. Stephen is following a divergent tradition, or, as is more probable, the errors are due to a lapse of memory natural enough under the disturbing circumstances of the speech. The father of Sychem] The true rendering is the 'son' of Sychem, which would be another discrepancy with Gen_33:19. But the RV adopts another reading, 'in Sychem (Shechem).'
18. Knew not Joseph] i.e. knew not the history of Joseph and of his great services to his adopted country.
19. So that] rather, 'that they might cast out their babes,' etc.
20. Was exceeding fair] lit. 'fair unto God,' i.e. fair even in the eyes of God: cp. Gen_10:9, 'a mighty hunter before Jehovah.'
22. Learned] i.e. taught. Undoubtedly true, though not mentioned in the OT. 'The wisdom of the Egyptians' consisted of natural science, magic, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics, and was mainly in the hands of the priesthood. Mighty in words] not inconsistent with Exo_4:10, for Moses' eloquence was acquired subsequently.
23. Forty years old] His age is derived from tradition.
30. Forty years] Another tradition. The rabbis said, 'Moses lived in Pharaoh's palace 40 years, in Midian 40 years, and ministered to Israel 40 years.' An angel] in Exo_3:2; 'the angel of Jehovah,' who is afterwards identified with Jehovah Himself.
34. I will send] rather, 'let me send.'
35. A ruler and a deliverer] lit. 'a ruler and redeemer.' Moses' 'redemption' of the people from the bondage of Egypt was a type of Christ's greater redemption of them from the bondage of sin and Satan.
37. A prophet] The importance of Moses, according to Stephen, is that he is the type and forerunner of a greater than himself, whose coming he foretold: see Deu_18:15, Deu_18:18 and cp. Act_3:22. Christ is the second and greater Moses, and, like him, a redeemer (Act_7:35), lawgiver (Act_7:38), and prophet (Act_7:37). Loyalty to Moses, therefore, necessarily implies loyalty to Christ.
38. In the church] i.e. in the congregation or assembly of all Israel at Mt. Sinai when the Law was given and the Covenant made and ratified. On this occasion Moses again typified Christ by acting as Mediator. He was with God (or God's angel) on Mt. Sinai holding converse with Him: he was also with the people below holding converse with them, and thus being intimately associated with both, made a covenant between them. With the angel] The idea that Moses did not receive the Law directly from God, but from an angel or angels, is contrary to the OT., but was current among the Jews at this period: see Jos. 'Ant.'
15.5, 3, 'We have learnt the most holy part of our Law by angels.' The Fathers identify the angel who spoke to Moses with the Logos, or second person of the Holy Trinity. Lively oracles] An oracle is an inspired utterance, hence the term is suitably applied to the Scriptures. The oracles are lively, or living, because they have the power of God in them, and the promises which they contain are effectual.
39. Israel's rebellion against Moses is a type of their later rebellion against Jesus. Egypt] i.e. the Egyptian way of life, especially Egyptian idolatry (bull-worship). In Egypt Apis was worshipped at Memphis, and Mnevis at Heliopolis under the form of a bull: see Exo_32:1.
42. The book of the prophets] The twelve minor prophets formed one roll or book. O ye house, etc.] freely quoted from LXX of Amo_5:25, Amo_5:26. Stephen, following LXX, supposes that the worship of Moloch and of the stars took place in the wilderness. This is not expressly mentioned in the Pentateuch, but it is not improbable, for the worship of Moloch is forbidden Lev_18:21, etc. Have ye offered?] The answer is 'No.' In appearance sacrifices had been offered to God, but inasmuch as they were offered by worshippers polluted by idolatry, they were no true sacrifices.
43. Ye took up] viz. to carry in a religious procession, or, to carry from one halting-place to another. The tabernacle of Moloch] a profane imitation of the tabernacle of Jehovah. Moloch (Molech, or Milcom) was an idol of the Ammonites to whom children were offered. His image is said to have been hollow, heated from below, with the head of an ox, and outstretched arms in which children were laid, their cries of agony being stifled by the beating of drums. The Heb., however, should probably be translated not 'the tabernacle of Moloch' (LXX and AV), but 'Siccuth, your king' (another false god). The star of your god Remphan] i.e. his star-emblem. The Heb. has Chiun (not Remphan), i.e. the planet Saturn. Beyond Babylon] Amos says, 'beyond Damascus.' Stephen has adapted the prophecy (according to the rabbinical fashion) to later events.
44. Stephen's reference to the movable tabernacle in the wilderness is probably intended to show that the worship of God is not necessarily confined to one place (Jerusalem), and that for adequate cause (e.g. the persistent rejection of Christ by the Jews) the privilege of Jerusalem may be taken away.
The tabernacle of witness] Thus LXX translates the phrase, which really means 'the tent of meeting,' i.e. the tent where God met His worshippers. But the phrase is nevertheless an apt one, for the tent contained the ark, which was a witness of the covenant, and the two tables on which the fundamental law of the covenant (the Decalogue) was written.
The fashion] see Exo_25:40; Exo_26:30; Heb_8:5.
45. RV 'Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered on the possession of the nations,' etc. Note Jesus='Joshua,' as in Heb_4:8.
48. Stephen's words do not indicate that the building of Solomon's Temple was a mistake, but they do indicate that God's worship is not necessarily tied to one place, and that the divine choice of Jerusalem as a place of worship is not irreversible. Solomon himself recognised this truth, 1Ki_8:27.
49, 50. See Isa_66:1, Isa_66:2.
51-53. Stephen, not careful of life, and willing to be a martyr, now denounces his judges.
52. Have slain] referring especially to Isaiah and Jeremiah, who both, according to tradition, suffered martyrdom. The Just One] i.e. Jesus: see Act_3:14.
53. By the disposition of angels] RV 'as it was ordained by angels'; RM 'as the ordinance of angels.' The precise meaning is uncertain, but some kind of mediation of angels in the giving of the Law is probably meant: see Gal_3:19; Heb_2:2.
7:54-8:3. Martyrdom of Stephen. Saul's persecution of the Church.
54. Were cut] lit. 'were sawn asunder': see Act_5:33.
55. Standing] Jesus rises from the throne on which He is represented as eternally sitting (Mat_26:64; Mar_16:19, etc.) to succour the martyr in his extremity, and to welcome his soul into bliss.
56. The Son of man] Here only is this title applied to Jesus by any one except Himself. It indicates that Stephen saw Him in human form: see on Mat_8:20.
57. Stopped their ears] because they regarded his words as blasphemous.
58. Out of the city] see 1Ki_21:13; Lev_24:14-16.
And stoned him] 'After a man has been condemned to be stoned, they bring him good strong wine, and give him to drink, that he may not feel too great horror of a violent death. Then come the witnesses, and bind his hands and feet, and lead him to the place of stoning. Then the witnesses take a great stone, large enough to cause death, and lay it upon his heart all together, lest one should act before another, according to Deu_17:7, "The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him": then all the Israelites can overwhelm him with stones' (Talmud). The execution of Stephen was tumultuous and illegal, for, (1) there was no formal sentence pronounced by the court, (2) the Roman authorities were not consulted about the death sentence: see Joh_18:31.
Saul] A young Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, born a Roman citizen, a tentmaker by trade, of well-to-do parents, trained at Jerusalem in the rabbinical school of Gamaliel the Pharisee, and accustomed to speak Hebrew (Act_21:39. etc.). His other name, Paul, first occurs Act_13:9.
59. Calling upon God] RV 'calling upon the Lord' (i.e. Jesus). Receive my spirit] A direct prayer to Jesus, and, therefore, a proof that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus was already established in the Church. It is not a prayer to a mere saintly intercessor ('Jesus, pray for me'), but a direct prayer offered in the firm belief that Jesus can really grant what is asked, viz. the salvation of the soul. Prayer to Jesus was universal in the Christian Church (Act_9:14, etc.).
60. Like his Master, Stephen dies praying for his enemies: cp. Luk_23:34
Act_8:1. At that time] RV 'on that day.'
Except the apostles] The apostles still wished to achieve the conversion of Jerusalem. Besides, as leaders of the flock, they disdained flight.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv1–59 VII: 1. “ Then said the high priest, Are…
VII: 1. “ Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Stephen responds in a long and powerful discourse.
There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally expect to find in it if we regard it as properly a defense a formal response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various individuals.
Read full note →
The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which they had falsely preferred against him.
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 9, 14, 16, 30, 35, 37, 38, 45, 49, 53, 54, 59 (See Scofield "Heb 1:4").
angel
(See Scofield "Heb 1:4").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. The Address of Stephen (Act 7:1-53).
CHAPTER 7
1. The Address of Stephen (Act 7:1-53).
Read full note →
2. The Martyrdom of Stephen (Act 7:54-60).
This is the largest chapter in this book and concludes the first section. Stephen is the chosen instrument to deliver the final testimony to the nation. He was not permitted to finish it.
We notice at once a marked difference between the previous preaching by the Apostle Peter and the address of Stephen. The testimony of Peter was marked on the day of Pentecost and at the other occasions by great brevity. Stephen’s address is the longest discourse reported in the New Testament. The name of Jesus is prominent in all the addresses of Peter. The fact that He was rejected by the people, crucified and that He rose from the dead, and the call to repentance, were the leading features of Peter’s preaching. Stephen does not mention the Name of Jesus at all, though he has the person of Christ and His rejection as the theme of his testimony. (The name “Jesus” appears in the A.V. in Act 7:45; but it should be “Joshua” instead.) At the close of his address he speaks of the Just One of whom they had become betrayers and murderers.
Stephen had been accused of speaking against Moses and against God, also against the temple and the law. These accusations he is asked to answer. What he declared before the council shows plainly that the accusations are utterly false. His speech is, therefore, partly apologetic; but it is also teaching, in that it shows certain truths from the historic events he cites. And before he finishes his testimony the accused becomes the accuser of the nation; the one to be judged becomes the judge. Indeed his whole testimony as he rapidly speaks of past history in his great and divinely arranged retrospect, is a most powerful testimony to the nation as well as against the nation.
The great address falls into the following sections: 1. Abraham’s History (Act 7:2-8). 2. Joseph and his brethren (Act 7:9-16). 3. The Rejection of Moses. The rejected one became their Deliverer and Ruler (Act 7:17-38). 4. The Story of the nation’s apostasy and shame (Act 7:39-50. Then Stephen ceased his historical retrospect, he addressed them directly. The accused witness becomes the mouthpiece of the Judge, who pronounces the sentence upon the nation. This is found in Act 7:51-53. His martyrdom followed.
Three things are mentioned of this first martyr. He was full of the Holy Spirit; he looked steadfastly into heaven, seeing the glory of God; he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
This is the first manifestation of the glorified Christ, which we have on record. There are three of them only. He appeared here to Stephen. Then He appeared unto Saul, who consented unto Stephen’s death. Saul beheld Him in that Glory, brighter than the noon-day sun, and heard His voice. The last time the glorified Christ manifested Himself was to John in the island of Patmos. These three appearings of the glorified Christ present to our view the three aspects of His Second Coming. First He comes to welcome His own into His presence. He will arise and come into the air to meet His beloved co-heirs there. This is represented by the first appearing to Stephen, standing to receive him. Then Israel will behold Him, they who pierced Him will see Him, as Saul of Tarsus beheld the Lord. Then He will appear as John saw Him, the One who judges the earth in righteousness.
And now after this great and glorious vision, Stephen bears testimony to it. “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” He speaks of the Lord as “Son of Man.” This is the only time outside of the Gospel records that we find this title of the Lord (aside from the old Testament reference in Heb 2:1-18).
They stoned him and Stephen, the mighty witness and mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, fell asleep.
God’s gracious offer and Christ had now been fully rejected by the nation. Stephen, who bore this last witness, is a striking evidence of the transforming power of Christ. How much like the Lord he was!
He was filled with the Spirit, full of faith and power, and like the Lord he did great wonders and miracles among the people. Like Christ, he was falsely accused of speaking against Moses, the law and the temple, and of being a blasphemer. They brought him before the same council and did what they did with the Lord, bringing false witnesses against him. He gave witness to the truth of the confession the Lord had given before the council, that He was to sit at the right hand of God. He beheld Him there. The Lord Jesus committed His spirit in the Father’s hands, and Stephen prayed that the Lord Jesus receive his spirit; and like the Lord he prayed for the forgiveness of his enemies. May the same power transform us all into the same image.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 9, 17, 23, 30, 35, 37, 42, 44, 51, 54, 57 The Defense of Stephen and His Death.
The Defense of Stephen and His Death.
Stephen refers to the call of Abraham:
Read full note →
v. 1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
v. 2. And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken: the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
v. 3. and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.
v. 4. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, He removed him in to this land, wherein ye now dwell.
v. 5. And He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; ye the promised that He would give it to him for a possession and to his seed after him when as ye the had no child.
The charges having been preferred, the president of the Sanhedrin, the high priest, gave Stephen permission to answer upon them. And Stephen opens his speech of defense with a respectful address to the judges, some of whom were of his own age and station, and thus might well be called brethren, while others were venerable with age, and thus should be called fathers. The very first words of his speech make it clear that he intends to correct some prevalent notions. The glory of God in the cloud of the covenant, the so-called Shechinah, was not confined to the Tabernacle or to the Temple, but the God of glory, the Possessor of the unlimited divine majesty, revealed Himself also at other places, just as it suited His purposes. It was thus that He appeared to Abraham while the latter was still living in Mesopotamia, in Ur of the Chaldees, before the entire family moved to Charran, or Haran, Gen 11:31; Gen 12:1. In Charran, Abraham had received the command of the Lord to leave both his country and his kindred, and to move to the country which even Terah had had in mind before his death. So Abraham, at that time Abram, had completed the removal to the land of Canaan, where he lived as a stranger among the Canaanites, not having so much as where he could place his foot to call his own. It is true, indeed, that both Abraham and Jacob had small parcels of land in Canaan, but they had them by purchase, not by God’s gift, and Abraham was even obliged to buy a burying-place for his wife, Gen 23:1-20. Thus the promise of God to Abraham that he, and his descendants after him, should have the land as their possession, at a time when he did not even have a child of his own, required a very strong faith.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
The part of the story about Stephen, which began in Acts 6:8, continues. Stephen begins his response to the high priest and the council by talking about things that happened in Israel's history. Most of this history comes from Moses' writings.
Read full note →
General Information:
The word "our" includes both Steven, the Jewish council to whom he spoke, and the entire audience. The word "your" is singular refers to Abraham. (See: Forms of You)
Brothers and fathers, listen to me
Stephen was being very respectful to the council in greeting them as extended family.
translationWords
high priest
Stephen
brother
ancestor
God
glory
Abraham
Mesopotamia
Haran
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 8, 14, 16, 37, 39, 42, 48, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59 7:1-53 Stephen responded to the accusations by testifying about…
7:1-53 Stephen responded to the accusations by testifying about his Lord (cp. Luke 21:12-17). Instead of defending himself against their prosecution, he became a witness in God’s prosecution of them, exposing their stubbornness and unfaithfulness to God. Stephen’s recital of Israel’s past reminded them of their repeated rejections of those whom God had sent. • Stephen’s review of Israel’s history has three principal parts, dealing with the work of the patriarchs (Acts 7:2-16), the ministry of Moses (7:17-43), and the role of the Tabernacle and the Temple (7:44-50). Stephen followed up his historical survey with a clear attack on the hard-heartedness of his own people. With a prophetic challenge, he urged them to stop rebelling against the Holy Spirit and turn to God with repentance and faith.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.