ACTS 7 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

Stephen’s Speech to the Sanhedrin

1 Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?”

BARES, "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.

CLARKE, "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 color 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? 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 Act_7:58; Act_8:1; Act_22:20.

GILL, "Then said the high priest,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "to him"; that is, to Stephen; for to him he addressed himself: or he "asked him", as the Syriac version renders it; he put the following question to him:

are these things so? is it true what they say, that thou hast spoken blasphemous words against the temple, and the law, and hast said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the one, and change the other? what hast thou to say for thyself, and in thine own

defence? this high priest was either Annas, or rather Caiaphas; See Gill on Act_4:6.

HERY, "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.

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,

JAMISO,"Act_7:1-60. Defense and martyrdom of Stephen.

In this long defense Stephen takes a much wider range, and goes less directly into the point raised by his accusers, than we should have expected. His object seems to have been to show (1) that so far from disparaging, he deeply reverenced, and was intimately conversant with, the whole history of the ancient economy; and (2) that in resisting the erection of the Gospel kingdom they were but treading in their fathers’ footsteps, the whole history of their nation being little else than one continued misapprehension of God’s high designs towards fallen man and rebellion against them.

HAWKER, "Then said the high priest, Are these things so?

The chapter opens with the demand of the high priest, that Stephen should answer to the charges brought against him; or rather, he takes the matter as already granted, and saith, are these things so? Not in the least overawed by the wonderful sight, which he,

and all that sat in the council saw, (as related in the foregoing chapter,) in the glory like an angel on Stephen’s countenance; the faithful servant of the Lord, was, in the mind of this time-serving high priest, already condemned. He only waited to hear somewhat, which might, with a little more plausibility, call forth his sentence. Under these impressions, he cried out, as with an holy indignation, are these things so?

CALVI, "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 (364) whether any man durst mutter against their superstitions, that so soon as he is convict, they may forthwith burn (365) 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; (366) 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, (367) 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 (368) this diligently, that he retaineth that God which the fathers have always worshipped, so that he turneth away the crime of wicked backsliding; (369) 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 (370) 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.

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.

BARCLAY, "STEPHE'S DEFECE (Acts 7:1-7)When Oliver Cromwell was outlining the education he thought necessary for his son Richard, he said, "I would have him know a little history." It was to the lesson of history that Stephen appealed. Clearly believing that the best form of defence was attack, he took a bird's eye view of the history of the Jewish people and cited certain truths as condemnation of his own nation.

(i) He saw that the men who played a really great part in the history of Israel were the men who heard God's command, "Get thee out," and were not afraid to obey it. With that adventurous spirit Stephen implicitly contrasted the spirit of the Jews of his own day, whose one desire was to keep things as they were and who regarded Jesus and his followers as dangerous innovators.

(ii) He insisted that men had worshipped God long before there ever was a Temple. To the Jews the Temple was the most sacred of all places. Stephen's insistence on the fact that God does not dwell exclusively in any temple made with hands was not to their liking.

(iii) Stephen insisted that when the Jews crucified Jesus they were only setting the coping stone on a policy they had always followed; for all through the ages they had persecuted the prophets and abandoned the leaders whom God had raised up.

These were hard truths for men who believed themselves to be the chosen people, and it is little wonder that they were infuriated when they heard them. We must watch for these ever-recurring notes as we study Stephen's defence.

THE MA WHO CAME OUT (Acts 7:1-7 continued)7:1-7 The high priest said, "Is this so?" And Stephen said, "Men, brothers and fathers, listen to what I have to say. The God of glory appeared to Abraham our father when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Charran. He said to him, 'Get out from your country and from your kindred and come here to a land which I will show you.' Then he came out from the land of the Chaldaeans and took up his residence in Charran. After the death of his father he removed from there and took up his residence in this land where you now live. God did not give him an inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot upon. But he did promise him that he would some day give it to him for a possession and to his descendants after him, although at that time he had no child. God spoke thus--that his descendants would be sojourners in an alien land, that they would make slaves of them and treat them badly for four hundred years. As for the nations to which they will be slaves--God said--'l will judge them, and after these years have passed, they will come out and they will serve me in this place.'"

As we have already seen, it was Stephen's method of defence to take a panoramic view of Jewish history. It was not the mere sequence of events which was in Stephen's mind. To him every person and event symbolized something. He began with Abraham, for in the most literal way it was with him that, for the Jew, history began. In him Stephen sees three things.

(i) Abraham was a man who answered God's summons. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, Abraham left home without knowing where he was to go (Hebrews 11:8). He was a man of adventurous spirit. Lesslie ewbigin of the Church of South India tells us that negotiations towards that union were often held up by people demanding to know just where such and such a step might lead. In the end someone had to say to these careful souls, "A Christian has no right to demand to know where he is going." For Stephen the man of God was he who obeyed God's command even when he had no idea what the consequences might be.

(ii) Abraham was a man of faith. He did not know where he was going but he believed that, under God's guidance, the best was yet to be. Even when he had no children and when, humanly speaking, it seemed impossible that he ever should have any, he believed that some day his descendants would inherit the land God had promised to them.

(iii) Abraham was a man of hope. To the end of the day he never saw the promise fully fulfilled but he never doubted that it would be.

So Stephen presents the Jews with the picture of an adventurous life, ever ready to answer God's summons in contrast to their desire to cling to the past.

BESO, ". 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, Acts 7:2; the calling of Moses, Acts 7:34, &c.; the dignity of the law, Acts 7:8; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:44; the holiness of this place, Acts 7:7; Acts 7:45; Acts 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, Acts 7:2, &c., 9, &c., 17, &c., 32, 34, 45; and they showed faith and obedience to God, Acts 7:4; Acts 7:20, &c., 23; particularly by their regard for the law, Acts 7:8, and the promised land, Acts 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, Acts 7:2; Acts 7:9; Acts 7:33; Acts 7:44. And that

our fathers and their posterity were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings, Acts 7:4, &c., 14, 29, 44, and exile, Acts 7:43, show. But you and your fathers have always been evil, Acts 7:9; have withstood Moses, Acts 7:25, &c., 39, &c.; have despised the land, Acts 7:39; forsaken God, Acts 7:40, &c.; superstitiously honoured the temple, Acts 7:48; resisted God and his Spirit, Acts 7:50; killed the prophets, and the Messiah himself, Acts 7:51; and kept not the law, for which ye contend, Acts 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. or 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 azareth, 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 Genesis 12:2.

COFFMA, "This great chapter is taken up entirely by the account of Stephen's so-called defense before the Sanhedrin and his martyrdom which climaxed it. Actually, Stephen's address was not so much a defense of himself as it was an epic survey of Jewish history as related to their rejection of the promised Messiah; and, while it is true a complete refutation of the charges against himself is apparent in this master oration, it is the glorious figure of the risen Lord which dominates every word of it.

It is only natural that in an address which touches so many historical events the destructive critics should have worked overtime searching for pseudocons. one of the so-called "contradictions," however, are of any importance; but a few of them will be noted for the purpose of showing the amazing weakness of such criticisms. Those great experts on Jewish history who sat in the Sanhedrin found no fault whatever with the history cited by Stephen; the only thing they objected to was his application of it!

STEPHE'S ADDRESS

The name "Stephen" means "wreath" or "crown,"[1] and it is appropriate that the first to win the martyr's crown should have worn such a name. It is said of Stephen in the ew Testament that he was a man:

Full of faith (Acts 6:5).

Full of grace (Acts 6:8, English Revised Version).

Full of power (Acts 6:8).

Full of light (Acts 6:15).

Full of scripture (Acts 7).

Full of wisdom (Acts 6:3,10).

Full of courage (Acts 7:51-56).

Full of love (Acts 7:60).[2]

The providence of God overruled the tragic event of Stephen's death (1) by making it the occasion for the scattering of the church which was so necessary in the divine purpose, and (2) by accomplishing through it (in all probability) the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the mightiest figure, apart from Christ, in the entire ew Testament.

[1] Herbert Lockyer, All the Men of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 321.

[2] Ibid., p. 322.

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

Hervey thought that the high priest at that time was Theophilus or Jonathan,[3] both being sons of Annas and both having held the office; but it appears that Bruce was more probably correct in saying that "The high priest was probably still Caiaphas, as at the trial of Jesus; he remained in office until A.D. 36."[4]

Are these things so ...? What a hypocritical question from the man who had bribed the witnesses to lie!

The best analysis of Stephen's speech seems to be that of Bruce, thus:

Stephen's historical survey reviews the history of the nation from the call of Abraham to the building of Solomon's temple. It concentrates on three main topics: (i) the patriarchal period (Acts 7:2-16); (ii), Moses and the law (Acts 7:17-43); (iii) the tabernacle and the temple (Acts 7:44-50). The first of the three sections of this speech is an introduction to the central themes; the second deals with the charge of blasphemy against Moses, the third with the charge of blasphemy against God.[5][3] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, p. 214.

[4] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 144.

[5] Ibid., p. 145.

EBC, "ST. STEPHEN’S DEFENCE AND THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

ST. STEPHEN and St. Philip are the two prominent names among the primitive deacons. Stephen, however, much surpasses Philip. Devout expositors of Scripture have recognised in his name a prophecy of his greatness. Stephen is Stephanos, a garland or crown, in the Greek language. Garlands or crowns were given by the ancient Greeks to those who rendered good services to their cities, or brought fame to them by winning triumphs in the great national games. And Stephen had his name divinely chosen for him by that Divine Providence which ordereth all things, because he was to win in the fulness of time an imperishable garland, and to gain a crown of righteousness, and to render highest services to the Church of God by his teaching and by his testimony even unto death. St. Stephen had a Greek name, and must have belonged to the Hellenistic division of the Jewish nation. He evidently directed his special energies to their conversion, for while the previous persecutions had been raised by the Sadducees, as the persons whose prejudices had been assailed, the attack on Stephen was made by the Grecian Jews of the synagogues belonging to the Libertines or freedmen, in union with those from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. The Libertines had been slaves, Jewish captives, taken in the various wars waged by the Romans. They had been dispersed among the Romans at Rome and elsewhere. There in their captivity they had learned the Greek language and become acquainted with Greek culture; and now, when they had recovered their freedom through that suppleness and power of adaptation which the Jewish race has ever displayed, they returned to Jerusalem in such numbers that a synagogue of the Libertines was formed. Their captivity and servitude had, however, only intensified their religious feelings, and made them more jealous of any attempts to extend to the Gentiles who had held them captives the spiritual possessions they alone enjoyed. There is, indeed, an extremely interesting parallel to the case of the Libertines in early English history, as told by Bede. The Saxons came to England in the fifth century and conquered the Christian Celts, whom they drove into Wales. The Celts, however, avenged themselves upon their conquerors, for they refused to impart to the Pagan Saxons the glad tidings of salvation which the Celts possessed. But the Libertines were not the only assailants of St. Stephen. With them were joined members of synagogues connected with various other important Jewish centres. Jerusalem was then somewhat like Rome at the present time. It was the one city whither a race scattered all over the world and speaking every language tended. Each language was represented by a synagogue, just as there are English Colleges and Irish Colleges and Spanish Colleges at Rome, where Roman Catholics of those nationalities find themselves specially at home. Among these Hellenistic antagonists of St. Stephen we have mention made of the men of Cilicia. Here, doubtless, was found a certain Saul of Tarsus, enthusiastic in defence of the ancient faith, and urgent with all his might to bring to trial the apostate who had dared to speak words which he considered derogatory of the city and temple of the great king.

Saul, indeed, may have been the great agent in Stephen’s arrest. It is a nature and an intellect like his that can discern the logical results of teaching like St. Stephen’s, and then found an accusation upon the deductions he makes rather than upon the actual words spoken. Saul may have placed the Church under another obligation on this

occasion. To him may be due the report of the speech made by Stephen before the Sanhedrin. Indeed, it is to St. Paul in his unconverted state we feel inclined to attribute the knowledge which St. Luke possessed of the earlier proceedings of the council in the matter of the Christians. After St. Paul’s conversion we get no such details concerning the deliberations of the Sanhedrin as we do in the earlier chapters of the Acts, simply because Saul of Tarsus, the rising champion and hope of the Pharisees, was present at the earlier meetings and had access to their inmost secrets, while at the later meetings he never appeared save to stand his trial as an accused person. The question, How was Stephen’s speech preserved? has been asked by some critics who wished to decry the historic truth of this narrative, and to represent the whole thing as a fancy sketch or romance, worked up on historic lines indeed, but still only a romance, written many years after the events had happened. Critics who ask this forget what modern research has shown in another department. The "Acts" of the martyrs are sometimes very large documents, containing reports of charges, examinations, and speeches of considerable length. These have often been considered mere fancy history, the work of mediaeval monks wishing to celebrate the glory of these early witnesses for truth, and sceptical writers have often put them aside without bestowing even a passing notice upon them.

Modern investigation has taken these documents, critically investigated them, compared them with the Roman criminal law, and has come to the conclusion that they are genuine, affording some of the most interesting and important examples of ancient methods of legal procedure anywhere to be found. How did the Christians get these records? it may be asked. Various hints, given here and there, enable us to see. Bribery of the officials was sometimes used. The notaries, shorthand writers, and clerks attendant upon a Roman court were numerous, and were always accessible to the gifts of the richer Christians when they wished to obtain a correct narrative of a martyr’s 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, to be in time transmitted to the present age. Now just the same may have been the case with the trials of the primitive Christians, and specially of St. Stephen. But we know that St. Paul was there. Memory among the Jews was sharpened to an extraordinary degree. We have now no idea to what an extent human memory was then developed. The immense volumes which are filled with the Jewish commentaries on Scripture were in those times transmitted from generation to generation, simply by means of this power. It was considered, indeed, a great innovation when those commentaries were committed to writing instead of being intrusted to tradition. It is no wonder then that St. Paul could afford his disciple, St. Luke, a report of what Stephen said on this occasion, even if he had not preserved any notes whatsoever of the process of the trial. Let us, however, turn to the consideration of St. Stephen’s speech, omitting any further notice of objections based on our own ignorance of the practices and methods of distant ages.

I. The defence of St. Stephen was a speech delivered by a Jew, and addressed to a Jewish audience. This is our first remark, and it is an important one. We are apt to judge the Scriptures, their speeches, arguments, and discussions, by a Western standard, forgetting that 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 have seemed to them utterly worthless, just as an argument which now seems pointless and weak appeared to them absolutely conclusive. Parallels, analogies, parables, mystical interpretations were then favourite methods of argument, and if we wish to understand writers like the authors of the scriptural books we must strive to place ourselves at their point of view, or else we shall miss their true

interpretation. Let us apply this idea to St. Stephen’s defence, which has been often depreciated because treated as if it were an oration addressed to a Western court or audience. Erasmus, for instance, was an exceedingly learned man, who lived at the period of the Reformation. He was well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but knew nothing of Jewish. ideas. He hesitates not, therefore, to say in his Annotations on this passage that there are many things in Stephen’s speech which have no-bearing on the question at issue; while Michaelis, another German writer of great repute in the: earlier days of this century, remarks that there are many things in this oration of which we cannot perceive the tendency, as regards the accusation brought against the martyr. Let us examine and see if the case be not otherwise, remembering that promise of the Master, given not to supersede human exertion or to indulge human laziness, but given to support and sustain and safeguard His persecuted servants under circumstances like those amid which Stephen found himself. "But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." What, then, was the charge brought against Stephen? He was accused of "speaking blasphemous words against Moses, and against God," or, to put it in the formal language used by the witnesses, "We have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us." Now Stephen, if merely a man of common sense, must have intended to reply, to this indictment. Some critics, as we have just noted, think that he failed effectually to do so. We are indeed often in great danger of paying too much attention and lending too great weight to objections of this kind urged by persons who assume to themselves the office of critics; and to counteract this tendency perhaps it is as well to note that a leading German writer of a rationalistic type, named Zeller, who has written a work to decry the historical character of the Acts, finds in St. Stephen’s words an oration "not only characteristic, but also better suited to the case and to the accusation raised against him than is usually supposed."

Disregarding, then, all cavils of critics whose views are mutually destructive, let us see if we cannot discern in this narrative the marks of a sound and powerful mind, guided, aided, and directed by the Spirit of God which dwelt so abundantly in him. St. Stephen was accused of irreverence towards Moses and hostility towards the temple, and towards all the Jewish institutions. How did he meet this? 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 amid these changes. His opponents now made idols of their local institutions and of the buildings of the temple, but God’s choice and God’s promise had originally nothing local about them at all. Abraham, their great father, was first called by God in Ur of the Chaldees, far away across the desert in distant Mesopotamia. Thence he removed to Charran, and then, only after the lapse of years, became a wanderer up and down in Canaan, where he never possessed so much of the land as he could set his foot upon. The promises of God and the covenant of grace were personal things, made to God’s chosen children, not connected with lands or buildings or national customs. He next takes up the case of Moses. He had been accused of blasphemy and irreverence towards the great national law-giver. His words prove that he entertained no such feelings; he respected and revered Moses just as much as his opponents and accusers did. But Moses had nothing to say or do with Canaan, or Jerusalem, or the temple. Nay, rather, his work for the chosen people was alone in Egypt and in Midian and on the side of Horeb, where the presence and name of Jehovah were manifested not in the temple or tabernacle, but in the bush burning yet not consumed.

The Grecian Jews accused Stephen of irreverence towards Moses. But how had their

forefathers treated that Moses whom he recognised as a divinely-sent messenger? "They thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt." Moses, however, led them onward and upward. His motto was hope. His rod and his voice ever pointed forward. He warned them that his own ministry was not the final one; that it was only an intermediate and temporary institution, till the prophet should come unto whom the people should hearken. 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. The argument of St. Stephen in this passage is the same as that of St. Paul in the fourth-chapter of Galatians, where he sets forth the temporary and intermediate character of the Levitical law and of the covenant of circumcision. So teaches St. Stephen in his speech. His argument is simply this:-I have been accused of speaking blasphemous words against Moses because I proclaimed that a greater Prophet than he had come, and yet this was only what Moses himself had foretold. It is not I who have blasphemed and opposed Moses: it is my accusers rather. But then he remembers that the accusation dealt not merely with Moses. It went farther, and accused him of speaking blasphemous words against the national sanctuary, "saying that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place."

This leads him to speak of the temple. 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. There was no chosen dwelling-place of the Almighty in the earliest days of all; His presence was then manifested wherever His chosen servants dwelt. Then Moses made a tent or tabernacle, which abode in no certain spot, but moved hither and thither. Last of all, long after Abraham, and long after Moses, and even after David, Solomon built God a house. Even when it was built, and in all its original glory, even then the temporary character of the temple was clearly recognised by the prophet Isaiah, who had long ago, in his sixty-sixth chapter, proclaimed the truth which had been brought forward as an accusation against himself: "Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool; what house will ye build Me, saith the Lord, or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things?"-a great spiritual truth which had been anticipated long before Isaiah by King Solomon, in his famous dedication prayer at the opening of the temple: "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded." (1Ki_8:27) After St. Stephen had set forth this undeniable truth confirmed by the words of Isaiah, which to the Pharisaic portion of his audience, at least, must have seemed conclusive, there occurs a break in the address.

One would have thought that he would then have proceeded to describe the broader and more spiritual life which had shone forth for mankind in Christ, and to expound the freedom from all local restrictions which should henceforth belong to acceptable worship of the Most High. Most certainly, if the speech had been invented for him and placed in his mouth, a forger would naturally have designed a fuller and more balanced discourse, setting forth the doctrine of Christ as well as the past history of the Jews. We cannot tell whether he actually entered more fully into the subject or not. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of St. Stephen’s doctrine. Isaiah’s opinion carried no weight with them as contrasted with the institutions of Moses, which were their pride and glory; and so, borne along by the force of his oratory, St. Stephen finished with that vigorous denunciation which led to his death: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." This exposition of St. Stephen’s speech will show the drift and argument of it as it appears to

us. But it must have seemed to them much more powerful, plain-spoken, and aggressive. He vindicated himself to any right-thinking and fair mind from the accusation of irreverence towards God, towards Moses, or towards the Divine institutions. But the minds of his hearers were not fair. He had trampled upon their prejudices, he had suggested the vanity of their dearest ideas, and they could not estimate his reasons or follow his arguments, but they could resort to the remedy which every failing, though for the present popular, cause possesses-they could destroy him. And thus they treated the modern as their ancestors had treated the ancient prophets. What a lesson Stephen’s speech has for the Church of every age! How wide and manifold the applications of it! The Jewish error is one that is often committed, their mistake often repeated. The Jews identified God’s honour and glory with an old order that was fast passing away, and had no eyes to behold a new and more glorious order that was opening upon them. We may blame them then for their murder of St. Stephen, but we must blame them gently, feeling that they acted as human nature has ever acted under similar circumstances, and that good motives were mingled with those feelings of rage and bigotry and narrowness that urged them to their deed of blood. Let us see how this was. Stephen proclaimed a new order and a new development, embracing for his hearers a vast political as well as a vast religious change. His forecast of the future 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. It is no wonder the Sanhedrin could not appreciate his oration. Men do not ever listen patiently when their pockets are being touched, their profits swept away, their dearest hopes utterly annihilated. Has not human experience often repeated the scene acted out that day in Jerusalem? On the political stage men have often seen it, -we ourselves have seen it. The advocates of liberty, civil and religious, have had to struggle against the same spirit and the same prejudices as St. Stephen. 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 the 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. It is no good sign for this age of ours that it possesses so little reverence for the past, thinks so lightly of the institutions, the wisdom, the ideas of antiquity, and is ready to change them at a moment’s notice. The men who now are held up to the execration of posterity, the high priest and the Sanhedrin who murdered Stephen, the tyrants and despots and their agents who strove to crush the supporters of liberty, the writers who cried them down and applauded or urged on the violent measures which were adopted and sometimes triumphed for the time, -we should strive to put ourselves in their position, and see what they had to say for themselves, and thus seek to judge them here below as the Eternal King will judge them at the great final tribunal. They knew the good which the old political institutions had worked. They had lived and flourished under them as their ancestors had lived and flourished before them. The future they knew not. All they knew was that changes were proposed which threatened everything with which their dearest memories were bound up, and the innovators seemed dangerous creatures, obnoxious to

God and man, and they dealt with them accordingly.

So it has been and still is in politics. 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 old 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 harshest, most unchristian deeds done in defence of what men believe to he the cause of truth and righteousness. Let us be just and fair to the aggressors as well as to the aggrieved, to the persecutors as well as to the persecuted. But let us all the same take good heed to learn for ourselves the lessons this narrative presents. Reverence is a good thing, and a blessed thing; and without reverence no true progress, either in political or spiritual things, can be made. But reverence easily degenerates into blind superstitious idolatry. It was so with the Sanhedrin, it was so at the Reformation, it has ever been so with the opponents of true religious progress. Let us evermore strive to keep minds free, open, unbiassed, respecting the past, yet ready to listen to the voice and fresh revelations of God’s will and purposes made to us by the messengers whom He chooses as He pleases. Perhaps there was never an age which needed this lesson of Stephen’s speech and its reception more than our own. The attitude of religious men towards science and its numerous and wondrous advances needs guidance such as this incident affords. The Sanhedrin had their own theory and interpretation of God’s dealings in the past. They clung to it passionately, and refused the teaching of Stephen, who would have widened their views, and shown them that a grand and noble development was quite in accordance with all the facts in the case, and indeed a necessary result of the sacred history when truly expounded! What a parable and picture of the future we here find! What a warning as to the attitude religious men should take up with respect to the progress of science! Patience, intellectual and religious patience, is taught us. The Sanhedrin were impatient of St. Stephen’s views, which they could not understand, and their impatience made them lose a blessing and commit a sin. Now has it not been at times much the same with ourselves? Fifty or sixty years ago men were frightened at the revelations of geology, -they had their own interpretations of the past and of the Scriptures, -just as three centuries ago men were frightened at the revelations and teaching of modern astronomy. Prejudiced and narrow men then strove to hound down the teachers of the new science, and would, if they could, have destroyed them in the name of God. Patience, here, however, has done its work and has had its reward. The new revelations have been taken up and absorbed by the Church of Christ. Men have learned to distinguish between their own interpretations of religion and of religious documents on the one hand and the religion itself on the other. The old, human, narrow, prejudiced interpretations have been modified. That which could be shaken and was untrue has passed away, while that which cannot be shaken has remained.

The lesson taught us by these instances of astronomy and geology, ought not to be

thrown away. Patience is again necessary for the Christian and for the scientist alike. New facts are every day coming to light, but it requires much time and thought to bring new facts and old truths into their due correlation, to look round and about them. The human mind is at best very small and weak. It is blind, and cannot see afar off, and it is only by degrees it can grasp truth in its fulness. A new fact, for instance, discovered by science may appear at first plainly contradictory to some old truth revealed in Scripture. But even so, we should not lose our patience or our hope taught us by this chapter. What new fact of science can possibly seem more contradictory to any old truth of the Creeds than St. Stephen’s teaching about the universal character of God’s promise and the freeness of acceptable worship must have seemed when compared with the Divine choice of the temple at Jerusalem? They appeared to the Sanhedrin’s ideas mutually destructive, though now we see them to have been quite consistent one with another. Let this historic retrospect support us when our faith is tried. Let us welcome every new fact and new revelation brought by science, and then, if they seem opposed to something we know to be true in religion, let us wait in confidence, begotten of past experience, that God in His own good time will clear up for His faithful people that which now seems difficult of comprehension. Patience and confidence, then, are two lessons much needed in this age, which St. Stephen’s speech and its reception bring home to our hearts.

II. We have now spoken of the general aspect of the discourse, and the broad counsels we may gather from it. There are some other points, however, points of detail as distinguished from wider views, upon which we would fix our attention. They too will be found full of guidance and full of instruction. Let us take them in the order in which they appear in St. Stephen’s address. The mistakes and variations which undoubtedly occur in it are well worthy of careful attention, and have much teaching necessary for these times. There are three points in which Stephen varies from the language of the Old Testament. In the fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter Stephen speaks thus: "Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls"; while, if we turn to the Pentateuch, we shall find that the number of the original Hebrew immigrants is placed three times over at seventy, or threescore and ten, that is in Gen_46:2; Gen_46:7, Exo_1:5, and Deu_10:22. This, however, is only a comparatively minor point. The Septuagintor Greek version of the Pentateuch reads seventy-five in the first of these passages, making the sons of Joseph born in Egypt to have been nine persons, and thus completing the number seventy-five, at which it fixes the roll of the males who came with Jacob. The next two verses, the fifteenth and sixteenth, contain a much more serious mistake. They run thus:-"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmot the father of Sychem." Now here there occur several grave errors. Jacob was not carried over and buried at Sychem at all, but at the cave of Machpelah, as is plainly stated in Gen_50:13. Again, a plot of ground at Sychem was certainly bought, not by Abraham, however, but by Jacob. Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite. Jacob bought his plot at Sychem from the sons of Emmor. There are in these verses, then, two serious historical mistakes; first as to the true burial-place of Jacob, and then as to the purchaser of the plot of ground at Sychem. Yet, again, there is a third mistake in the forty-third verse, where, when quoting a denunciation of Jewish idolatry from Amo_5:25-26, he quotes the prophet as threatening, "I will carry you away beyond Babylon," whereas the prophet did say, "Therefore I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus." St. Stephen substituted Babylon for Damascus, two cities between which several hundred miles intervened. I have stated the difficulty thus as strongly as possible, because I think that, instead of constituting a difficulty, they are a real source

of living help and comfort, as well as a great practical confirmation of the story. Let us take this last point first. I say that these mistakes, admitted mistakes which I make no vain attempt to explain away, constitute a confirmation of the story as given in the Acts against modern rationalistic opponents. It is a favourite theme of many of these writers that the Acts of the Apostles is a mere piece of fancy history, a historical romance composed in the second century for the purpose of reconciling the adherents of St. Paul, or the Gentile Christians, with the followers of St. Peter, or the Jewish Christians.; The persons who uphold this view fix the date of the Acts in the earlier half of the second century, and teach that the speeches and addresses were composed by the author of the book and put into the mouths of the reputed speakers. Now, in the mistake made by St. Stephen, we have a refutation of this theory. Surely any man composing a speech to put into the mouth of one of his favourite heroes and champions would not have represented him as making such grave errors when addressing the supreme Jewish senate. A man might easily make any of these slips which I have noticed in the heat of an oration, and they might have even passed unnoticed, as every speaker who has much practice in addressing the public still makes precisely the same kind of mistake. But a romancer, sitting down to forge speeches suitable to the time and place, would never have put in the mouth of his lay figures grave errors about the most elementary facts of Jewish history. We conclude, then, that the inaccuracies reported as made by St. Stephen are evidences of the genuine character of the oration attributed to him. Then again we see in these mistakes a guarantee of the honesty and accuracy of the reports of the speech. The other day I read the objections of a critic to our Gospels. He wished to know, for instance, how the addresses of our Lord could have been preserved in an age when there was no shorthand. The answer is, however, simple enough, and conclusive: there was shorthand in that age. Shorthand was then carried to such perfection that an epigram of Martial (14:208), a contemporary poet, celebrating its triumphs may be thus translated:-

"Swift though the words, the pen still swifter sped; The hand has finished ere the tongue has said."

While even if the Jews knew nothing of shorthand, the human memory, as we have already noted, was then developed to a degree of which we have no conception. Now, whether transmitted by memory or by notes, this address of St. Stephen bears proofs of the truthfulness of the reporter in the mistakes it contains. A man anxious for the reputation of his hero would have corrected them, as parliamentary reporters are accustomed to make the worst speeches readable, correcting evident blunders, and improving the grammar. The reporter of St. Stephen’s words, on the contrary, gave them to us just as they were spoken. But then, I may be asked, how do you account for St. Stephen’s mistake? What explanation can you offer? My answer is simple and plain enough. I have no other explanation to offer except that 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. Every man who speaks an extemporaneous discourse such as Stephen’s was, full of references to past history, is liable to such errors. Even when the memory retains the facts most accurately, the tongue is apt to make such lapses. Let a number of names be mingled up together in a speech or sermon where frequent mention has to be made of one now and of another again, how easily in that case a speaker substitutes one for another. But it may be objected that it is declared of Stephen that he was "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," that "he was full of faith and power," and that his adversaries "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake." But surely this might be said of able, devoted, and holy men at the present day, and yet no one would say that they were miraculously kept from the most trivial mistakes, and that their memories and

tongues were so supernaturally aided that they were preserved from the smallest verbal inaccuracies. We are always inclined to reverse the true scientific method of inquiry, and to form notions as to what inspiration must mean, instead of asking what, as a matter of fact, inspiration did mean and involve in the case of the Bible heroes. People when they feel offended by these mistakes of St. Stephen prove that they really think that Christianity was quite a different thing in the apostolic days from what it is now, and that the words "full of the Holy Ghost" and the presence of the Divine Spirit meant quite a different gift and blessing then from what they imply at the present time. I look upon the mistakes in this speech in quite a different light. St. Luke, in recording them exactly as they took place, proves, not merely his honesty as a narrator, but he also has handed down to us a most important lesson. He teaches us to moderate our notions and to hasten our a priori expectations. He shows us we must come and study the Scriptures to learn what they mean by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit. St. Luke expressly tells us that Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and then proceeds to narrate certain verbal inaccuracies and certain slips of memory to prove to us that the presence of the Holy Ghost does not annihilate human nature, or supersede the exercise of the human faculties. Just as in other places we find Apostles like St. Peter or St. Paul spoken of as equally inspired, and yet the inspiration enjoyed by them did not destroy their human weakness and infirmities, and, full of the Holy Ghost as they were, St. Paul could wax wroth and engage in bitter dissension with Barnabas, his fellow-labourer; and St. Peter could fall into hypocrisy against which his brother Apostle had publicly to protest. It is wonderful how liable the mind is, m matters of religion, to embrace exactly the same errors age after age, manifesting themselves in different shapes. Men are ever inclined to form their theories beforehand, and then to test God’s actions and the course of His Providence by those theories, instead of reversing the order, and testing their theories by facts as God reveals them. This error about the true theory of inspiration and the gifts of the Holy Ghost which Protestants have fallen into is exactly the same as two celebrated mistakes, one in ancient, the other in modern times. The Eutychian heresy was very celebrated in the fifth century. It split the Eastern Church into two parts, and prepared the way for the triumph of Mahometanism. It fell, too, into this same error. It formed a a priori theory of God and His nature. It determined that it was impossible for the nature of Deity to be united to a nature which could feel hunger and thirst and weakness, because that God cannot be affected by any human weakness or wants. It denied, therefore, the real humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the reality of His human life and actions; teaching that His human body was not real, but merely a phenomenal or apparent one, and then explaining away all the statements and facts of Gospel history which seemed to them to conflict with their own private theory. In the West we have had ourselves experience of the same erroneous method of argument. The adherents of the Church of Rome argue for the infallibility of the Pope in the same way. They dilate on the awful importance of religious truth, and the fearful consequences of a mistake in such matters. Hence they conclude that it is only natural and fitting that a living, speaking, teaching, infallible guide should be appointed by God to direct the Church, and thence they conclude the infallibility of the Pope; a method of argument which has been amply exposed by Dr. Salmon in his work on the Infallibility of the Church. The Roman Catholics form their theory first, and when they come to facts which conflict with their theory, they deny them or explain them away in the most extraordinary manner.

Protestants themselves, however, are subject to the same erroneous methods. They form a theory about the Holy Ghost and His operations. They conclude, as is true, that He is Himself right and just and true in all His doings, and then they conclude that all the men whom He chose in the earliest age of the Church, and who are mentioned in Scripture as

endued with His grace, must have been as free from every form of error as the Holy Spirit Himself. They thus fashion for themselves a mere a priori theory like the Eutychian and the Romanist, and then, when they apply their theory to passages like St. Stephen’s speech, they feel compelled to deny facts and offer forced explanations, and to reject God’s teaching as it is embodied in the divinely taught lessons of history. Let us be honest, fearless students of the Scriptures. St. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, and as such his great, broad, spiritual lessons were taught by the Spirit, and commend themselves as Divine teaching to every Christian heart. But these lessons were given through human lips, and had to be conveyed through human faculties, and as such are not free from the imperfections which attach themselves to everything human here below. Surely it is just the same still. God the Holy Ghost dwells with His people as of old. There are men, even in this age, of whom it still may be said, that in a special sense "they are full of the Holy Ghost," a blessing granted in answer to faithful prayer and devout communion and a life lived closely with God. The Holy Spirit speaks through them and in them. Their sermons, even on the simplest topics, speak with power, they teem with spiritual unction, they come home with conviction to the human conscience. Yet surely no one would dream of saying that these men are free from slips of speech and lapses of memory in their extemporaneous addresses, or in their private instructions, or in their written letters, because the Holy Ghost thus proves His presence and His power in His people as of old. The human heart and conscience easily and at once distinguish between that which is due to human weakness and what to Divine grace, according to that most pregnant saying of an Apostle himself gifted above all others, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." This view may be startling to some persons who have been accustomed to look to the Bible as some persons look to the Pope, as an oracle which will give them infallible guidance on every topic without the exercise of any thought or intelligence on their own part. Yet it is no original or novel notion of my own, but one that has been luminously set forth by a devout expositor of Scripture, dealing with this very passage many years ago. Dr. Vaughan, in his lectures on the Acts, preaching at Doncaster when vicar of that place, thus states his conclusions on this point:-"Now I will address one earnest word to persons who may have noticed with anxiety in this chapter, or who may have heard it noticed by others in a tone of cavil or disbelief, that in one or two minor points the account here given of Jewish history seems to vary from that contained in the narrative of the Old Testament. For example, the history of the book of Genesis tells us that the burying-place bought by Abraham was in Mamre or Hebron, not at Sychem; and that it was bought by him of Ephron the Hittite, Jacob (not Abraham) being the purchaser of the ground at Shechem of the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father. My friends, can you really suppose that a difference of this nature has anything to do, this way or that, with the substantial truth of the gospel revelation? I declare to you that I would not waste the time in endeavouring (if I was able) to reconcile such a variance. It is to be regretted that Christian persons, in their zeal for the literal accuracy of our Holy Book, have spoken and written as if they thought that anything could possibly depend upon such a question. We all know how easy it is to get two witnesses in a court of justice to give their stories of an occurrence in the same words. We know also how instant is the suspicion of falsehood which that formal coincidence of statement brings upon them. Holy Scripture shows what I may indeed call a noble superiority to all such uniformity. Each book of our Bible is an independent witness; shown to be so, not least, by verbal or even actual differences on some trifling points of detail. And they who drink most deeply at the fountain head of Divine truth learn to estimate these things in the same manner; to feel what we might describe as a lordly disdain for all infidel objections drawn from this sort of petty, paltry, cavilling, carping, creeping criticism. Let our faith at last, God helping

us, be strong enough and decided enough to override a few or a multitude of such objections. We will hear them unmoved; we will fearlessly examine them; if we cannot resolve them, then, in the power of a more majestic principle, we will calmly turn from them and pass them by. What we know not now, we may know hereafter; and if we never know we will believe still." These are wise words, very wholesome, very practical, and very helpful in this present age.

III. Let us briefly gather yet another lesson from this passage. The declaration of the Church’s catholicity and the universal nature of Christian worship contained in verses 47-50 (Act_7:47-50) deserve our attention. What did St. Stephen say?-"But Solomon built Him a house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet, The heaven is My throne, and the earth the footstool of My feet; what manner of house will ye build Me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of My rest? Did not My hand make all these things?" These words must have sounded as very extraordinary and very revolutionary in Jewish ears, because they most certainly struck at the root of the exclusive privilege claimed for Jerusalem, that it was the one place upon earth where acceptable worship could be offered, and where the Divine presence could be manifested. It seems no wonder that they should have aroused the Sanhedrin to the pitch of fury which ended in the orator’s judicial murder. But these words have been at times pressed farther than Stephen intended. He merely wished to teach that God’s special and covenanted presence was not for the future to be limited to Jerusalem. In the new dispensation of the Messiah whom he preached, that special covenanted presence would be found everywhere. Where two or three should be gathered in Christ’s name there would God’s presence be found. These words of Stephen have sometimes been quoted as if they sounded the death-knell of special places dedicated to the honour and glory of God, such as churches are. It is evident, however, that they have no such application. They sounded the death-knell of the exclusive privilege of one place, the temple, but they proclaimed the freedom which the Church has ever since claimed, and the Jewish Church of the dispersion, by the institution of synagogues, had led the way in claiming; teaching that wherever true hearts and true worshippers are found, there God reveals Himself. But we must bear in mind a distinction. Stephen and the Apostles rejected the exclusive right of the Temple as the one place of worship for the world. They asserted the right to establish special places of worship throughout the world. They rejected the exclusive claims of Jerusalem. But they did not reject the right and the duty of God’s people to assemble themselves as a collective body for public worship, and to realise Christ’s covenanted presence. This is an important limitation of St. Stephen’s statement. The absolute duty of public collective worship of the Almighty cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Men neglect it, and they support themselves by an appeal to St. Stephen’s words, which have nothing to do with public worship more than with private worship. The Jews imagined that both public and private worship offered in the Temple had some special blessing attached, because a special presence of God was there granted. St. Stephen attacked this prejudice. His words must, however, be limited to the exact point he was then dealing with, and must not be pressed farther. Private prayer was binding on all God’s people in the new and freer dispensation, and so, too, public worship has a special covenant blessing attached to it, and the blessing cannot be obtained if people neglect the duty. Public worship has been by Protestants looked at too much, as if it were only a means of their own edification, and thus, when they have thought that such edification could be as well or better attained at home, by reading a better sermon than they might chance to hear in the public congregation, they have excused their absence to their own conscience. But public worship is much more than a means of edification. It is the payment of a debt of worship, praise, and adoration due by

the creature to the Creator. In that duty personal edification finds a place, but a mere accidental and subsidiary place. The great end of public worship is worship, not hearing, not edification even, though edification follows as a necessary result of such public worship when sincerely offered. The teaching of St. Stephen did not then apply to the erection of churches and buildings set apart for God’s service, or to the claim made for public worship as an exercise with a peculiar Divine promise annexed. It simply protests against any attempt to localise the Divine presence to one special spot on earth, making it and it alone the centre of all religious interest. St. Stephen’s words are indeed but a necessary result of the ascension of Christ as we have already expounded its expediency. Had Christ remained on earth, His’ personal presence would have rendered the Church a mere local and not a universal institution; just as the doctrine of Roman Catholics about the Pope as Christ’s Vicar, and Rome as his appointed seat, has so far invested Rome with somewhat of the characteristics of Jerusalem and the Temple. But our Lord ascended up on high that the hearts and minds of His people might likewise ascend to that region where, above time and sense and change, their Master evermore dwells, as the loadstone which secretly draws their hearts, and guides their tempest tossed spirits across the stormy waters of this world to the haven of everlasting rest.

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "Then said the high priest, Are these things so?

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.—

Stephen’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.)

Stephen’s 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 God’s 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 moment’s 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! Joseph’s 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 king’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 Abram’s 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 Stephen’s corresponds with Christ’s 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 Lamb’s Bride, and He will marry her at the altar of the universe! (J. Parker, D. D.)

St. Stephen’s defence

How was Stephen’s 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 martyr’s 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. Stephen’s address. Possibly the Sadducean portion of his audience had got quite enough. Their countenances and gestures bespoke their horror of his doctrines. Isaiah’s 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 Stephen’s 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 Stephen’s 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.)

Stephen’s 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. “Argyle’s sleep” on the night before his execution made his enemies’ blood run cold. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

The God of Glory.—

Stephen’s 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 father’s 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 (Jas_5:17). (Bp. Jacobsen.)

2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran.

BARES, "Men, brethren, and fathers - These were the usual titles by which the Sanhedrin was addressed. In all this Stephen was perfectly respectful, and showed that he was disposed to render due honor to the institutions of the nation.

The God of glory - This is a Hebrew form of expression denoting “the glorious God.” It properly denotes His “majesty, or splendor, or magnificence”; and the word “glory” is often applied to the splendid appearances in which God has manifested Himself to people, Deu_5:24; Exo_33:18; Exo_16:7, Exo_16:10; Lev_9:23; Num_14:10. Perhaps Stephen meant to affirm that God appeared to Abraham in some such glorious or splendid manifestation, by which he would know that he was addressed by God. Stephen, moreover, evidently uses the word “glory” to repel the charge of “blasphemy” against God, and to show that he regarded him as worthy of honor and praise.

Appeared ... - In what manner he appeared is not said. In Gen_12:1, it is simply recorded that God “had said” unto Abraham, etc.

Unto our father - The Jews valued themselves much on being the children of Abraham. See the notes on Mat_3:9. The expression was therefore well calculated to conciliate their minds.

When he was in Mesopotamia - In Gen_11:31, it is said that Abraham dwelt “in Ur of the Chaldees.” The word “Mesopotamia” properly denotes the region between the two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris. See notes on Act_2:9. The name is Greek, and the region had also other names before the Greek name was given to it. In Gen_11:31; Gen_15:7, it is called Ur of the Chaldees. Mesopotamia and Chaldea might not exactly coincide; but it is evident that Stephen meant to say that “Ur” was in the country afterward called Mesopotamia. Its precise situation is unknown. A Persian fortress of this name is mentioned by Ammianus Gen_25:8 between Nisibis and the Tigris.

Before he dwelt in Charran - From Gen_11:31, it would seem that Terah took his son Abraham of his own accord, and removed to Haran. But from Gen_12:1; Gen_15:7, it appears that God had commanded “Abraham” to remove, and so he ordered it in his providence that “Terah” was disposed to remove his family with an intention of going into the land of Canaan. The word “Charran” is the Greek form of the Hebrew “Haran,” Gen_11:31. This place was also in Mesopotamia, in 36 degrees 52 minutes north latitude and 39 degrees 5 minutes east longitude. Here Terah died Gen_11:32; and to this place Jacob retired when he fled from his brother Esau, Gen_27:43. It is situated “in a flat and sandy plain, and is inhabited by a few wandering Arabs, who select it for the delicious water which it contains” (Robinson’s Calmet).

CLARKE, "Men, brethren, and fathers - Rather, brethren and fathers, for

ανδρες should not be translated separately from αδελφοι. Literally it is men-brethren, a

very usual form in Greek; for every person knows that ανδρες�Αθηναιοι and ανδρες�

Περσαι should not be translated men-Athenians and men-Persians, but simply

Athenians and Persians. See Act_17:22. So, in Luk_2:15, ανθρωποι�ποιµενες should be

translated shepherds, not men-shepherds. And ανθρωπος�βασιλευςMat_18:23, should

not be translated man-king, but king, simply. By translating as we do, men, brethren, and fathers, and putting a comma after men, we make Stephen address three classes,

when in fact there were but two: the elders and scribes, whom he addressed as fathers; and the common people, whom he calls brethren. See Bp. Pearce, and see Act_8:27.

The God of glory appeared, etc. - As Stephen was now vindicating himself from the false charges brought against him, he shows that he had uttered no blasphemy, either against God, Moses, or the temple; but states that his accusers, and the Jews in general, were guilty of the faults with which they charged him: that they had from the beginning rejected and despised Moses, and had always violated his laws. He proceeds to state that there is no blasphemy in saying that the temple shall be destroyed: they had been without a temple till the days of David; nor does God ever confine himself to temples built by hands, seeing he fills both heaven and earth; that Jesus is the prophet of whom Moses spoke, and whom they had persecuted, condemned, and at last put to death; that they were wicked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears, and always resisted the Holy Ghost as their fathers did. This is the substance of St. Stephen’s defense as far as he was permitted to make it: a defense which they could not confute; containing charges which they most glaringly illustrated and confirmed, by adding the murder of this faithful disciple to that of his all-glorious Master.

Was in Mesopotamia - In that part of it where Ur of the Chaldees was situated, near to Babel, and among the rivers, (Tigris and Euphrates), which gave the name of Mesopotamia to the country. See the note on Gen_11:31.

Before he dwelt in Charran - This is called Haran in our translation of Gen_11:31; this place also belonged to Mesopotamia, as well as Ur, but is placed west of it on the maps. It seems most probable that Abraham had two calls, one in Ur, and the other in Haran. He left Ur at the first call, and came to Haran; he left Haran at the second call, and came into the promised land. See these things more particularly stated in the notes on Gen_12:1 (note).

GILL, "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:

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 καρραι, 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.

HERY, "(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,”

JAMISO,"The God of glory— A magnificent appellation, fitted at the very outset to rivet the devout attention of his audience; denoting not that visible glory which attended many of the divine manifestations, but the glory of those manifestations themselves, of which this was regarded by every Jew as the fundamental one. It is the glory of absolutely free grace.

appeared unto our father Abraham before he dwelt in Charran, and said, etc.— Though this first call is not expressly recorded in Genesis, it is clearly implied in Gen_15:7 and Neh_9:7; and the Jewish writers speak the same language.

HAWKER 2-16, "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 Haran, (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. (4) Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. (5) And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (6) And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. (7) 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. (8) And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. (9) And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him, (10) And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. (11) Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. (14) Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. (15) So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, (16) And were carried over into Shechem, and laid in the sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem.

We have reason to bless God the Holy Ghost, not only for the occasion which gave rise to this precious discourse of Stephen, but for causing it to be recorded. For, although we have the whole history before, in the word of God; yet the manner in which Stephen, under the full impressions of the Holy Ghost, (see Act_6:5 and Act_7:55) delivered this sermon, hath thrown a light upon some parts of it, in a most blessed and interesting manner, and which I hope the Lord will enable us to perceive, as we prosecute the subject.

Stephen begins in a respectful manner, such as became him. For, although the present Sanhedrim was composed of very different characters from those holy men of old, which, at the first institution of the order were appointed and consecrated of God; (compare Num_11:16-17 with Act_4:5-7, see also the Commentary on those verses) yet the order was the same, being of the Lord’s appointment. And this holds good in all ages, and upon all occasions, Rom_13:1. I admire the expression Stephen useth, when he calleth the Lord, the God of glory. And I would humbly ask, whether Stephen did not mean the same glorious Person as appeared to Moses in the bush, and which he takes

notice of in his discourse, (Act_7:30) For the appearing to Abraham at the time Stephen speaks of, and the appearing to Moses in the after age of the Church, at the bush, were both on the same covenant concern; and in both, the Lord called himself by the same name, Gen_15:18; Exo_3:6. And who this glorious person was, cannot be far to learn. Stephen himself hath explained, (Act_7:38) He calls him the angel which spake to Moses in the mount. Now that angel which spake to Moses in the mount, expressly called himself Jehovah. See Exo_3:6. And Christ is both the covenant himself, and the angel or messenger of the covenant, Isa_42:6; Mal_3:1. And had this not been the case, in both these transactions, with Abraham and Moses, as well as upon numberless other occasions, when this angel is said by Stephen, (Act_7:38) to have spake not only to Moses, but to our fathers, how could the Lord Jesus tell the Jews, as he did tell them, that they had never heard the Father’s voice at any time, nor seen his shape? Joh_5:37. It appears to me I confess, that this decision of the Lord Jesus becomes an unanswerable argument, (in addition to the many other collateral testimonies we have,) that both the manifestations and words, which were made to the old Church before the incarnation of Christ, were by Him, who in the fulness of time, was to openly tabernacle, in substance of our flesh, among his people, and intended as so many intimations, to keep alive the expectation of that glorious event, in the minds of the Lord’s people.

Stephen having thus opened his subject at that part, where alone it could be opened, beginning with the God of glory; he takes up the history of the Church at the revelation of the covenant with Abraham, and refers his hearers to the well-known circumstances of the opening of that Covenant-transaction, in the call of Abraham. I need not follow Stephen through the whole of what he hath rehearsed within the compass of those few verses. The whole particulars are all upon record in the life of the patriarch. But I would rather call upon my Reader to remark with me, the several very interesting things Stephen hath stated, in respect to Abraham; and which, more or less, belong to all Abraham’s seed, which are also heirs according to the promise, Gal_3:29.

The Lord called Abraham from his father’s house, and from his kindred. The Lord, though promising to give the land, to which he called him for an inheritance to him, and to his seed after him; yet for a long space gave him no possession there, no not a foot’s breadth. The Lord, though promising that his seed should be as the stars of the heaven for multitude, yet, for many a year, suffered him to go childless, Gen_15:1-6. And even when Ishmael was born, the Lord taught him, that this son of the bondwoman, was not the heir, in whom the promise was to be vested, and from whose seed after the flesh the promised seed should come, Gen_17:18-21.

Pause, Reader, and contemplate the subject spiritually as it is with all the Lord’s people; and then say, are not Abraham’s children, after the faith, more or less, exercised the same? The call of Abraham was a pattern how the Lord, in after ages, would call the spiritual offspring of his dear Son, Isa_44:3-5. They are also called, from their father’s house, and from their kindred, in the Adam-nature of a fallen state; and are commanded to forget their own people, and their father’s house, when sovereign grace hath opened their eyes to a sense of sin, and a desire of salvation, Psa_45:10. And as Abraham, at the call of God, went out not knowing whither he went: so Abraham’s seed are exercised the same way. By faith like him they are going forth in the strength of Christ, looking for a city which hath foundations whose builder and Maker is God, Heb_11:8-10. And how sweet are discovered, in the after fruits of faith, the many exercises of the Lord’s tried ones? There can be no real trust in the Lord without faith, Heb_11:6. Untried faith is in reality no faith. While the Lord acts only as a promising God; our knowledge of Him, and our dependance upon Him, can only be by faith. But when this promising God becomes a performing God, faith then is lost in enjoyment. So that in fact, during the time of

waiting, is the only time for the exercise of this precious gift of a Covenant God in Christ. And, Reader! let me detain you one moment longer to observe, that it is on this account faith is so highly spoken of by God the Holy Ghost, in his blessed word. We read of the precious blood of Christ, 1Pe_1:19. Of the exceeding great and precious promises, 2Pe_1:4. And with these (wonderful to tell) is named, precious faith also, more precious than gold, 1Pe_1:7. And what can be more precious, as a fruit, and effect, of the Lord’s grace in the heart of his redeemed, than when a child of God, like Abraham, the great father of the faithful, against hope is enabled to believe in hope, Rom_4:8. Oh! for grace to be so wholly emptied of self, as to be always living upon Christ, walking with Christ, and trusting in Christ! Sweet faith! Lord increase our faith! See 1Pe_1:7 and Commentary.

In prosecuting Stephen’s sermon, I would beg the Reader to observe with me, how this faithful servant of the Lord takes notice of the Lord’s grace, in giving Abraham the outlines of the Covenant, which was to run on so many hundred years before the promised seed should come, to whom the promise was made, and in whom the whole was to be fulfilled. There is somewhat very blessed in this; and merits our concern. Abraham himself was not to live to see the accomplishment. Neither Isaac, nor Jacob, the heirs with him of the promise. Neither the patriarchs which followed. But what of that? Though so long an interval was to take place, the thing was the same: and the promise itself certain and sure. The Covenant of circumcision was appointed as an outward sign, or seal, to carry on the assurance of it from father to son. Hence, with this scriptural rite, the Patriarchs handed down in successive generations, this great promise of God, as more precious, yea, infinitely more precious, as the blessed Charter of grace, than rich men transmit to their heirs the titles of their estates, and all their perishing treasures.

And these things induced in the hearts of the Patriarchs, through divine teaching, an holy familiarity and acquaintance with the person, work, and glory of Christ the promised seed. Abraham saw the day of Christ afar off, rejoiced, and was glad, Joh_8:56. Isaac lived and died, in the full assurance, not only of his own personal interest in the same, but that in him the promised seed should be called: and by faith, blessed Jacob and Esau, concerning things to come, Heb_11:18-20. (See Commentary there.) And no less Jacob, when He was a dying, by faith, in the same glorious expectation, blessed both the sons of Joseph, and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff, Heb_11:21. In short, so did all the fathers in succession. They all lived, and they all died, as they had lived, in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them. They cherished the blessed hope; carried it about with them wherever they went, as in their arms, and wore it close to their heart. And thus, the father to the children made known the Lord’s truth! Isa_38:19. See also Gen_48:21; Gen_50:24-25.

Reader! do not dismiss this part of Stephen’s sermon, in the view of the patriarchs, and their faith in Christ, without first enquiring whether you are among the followers of them, who now through faith and patience inherit the promises. Remember, that the promise to which these holy men of old looked, and which they died in the full assurance of, hath been for many hundred years since fulfilled, in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. And now in the possession of those blessed truths, which their faith had in view, but which we have seen accomplished; our faith is now exercised, in looking forward to the sure expectation of all these blessings, resulting from the whole, in grace here, and glory hereafter. Reader! it is precious faith, when we rejoice in hope of the glory of God, Rom_5:2.

I pass over the several records of the Patriarchs, in what Stephen hath just glanced at in

those verses, of their going down into Egypt. For, although the events themselves are highly interesting, and would well recompense a long and close attention to them; yet they would far exceed the limits I am constrained to observe, in this Poor Man’s Commentary.

CALVI, "2.Men, brethren, and fathers. Although Stephen saw that those which sat in the council were, for the most part, the sworn enemies of Christ, yet because the ordinary government of the people did belong to them, and they had the oversight of the Church, which God had not as yet cast off, therefore, he is not afraid, for modesty’s sake, to call them fathers. either doth he flatteringly purchase favor hereby; but he giveth this honor to the order and government appointed by God, until such time as the authority should be taken from them, the order being altered. evertheless, the reverence of the place which they had doth not hinder him nor stop his mouth; but that he doth freely dissent from them, whereby it appeareth how ridiculous the Papists are who will have us so tied unto bare and vain invented titles, that they may enforce us to subscribe unto their decrees, though they be never so wicked.

The God of glory. By this beginning, he declareth that he doth not disagree or dissent from the fathers in true religion which they followed; for all religion, the worship of God, the doctrine of the law, all prophecies, did depend upon that covenant which God made with Abraham; therefore, when Stephen confessed that God appeared to Abraham, he embraceth the law and the prophets, which flow from that first revelation as from a fountain; moreover, he calleth him the God of glory, that he may distinguish him from the false and reigned gods, who alone is worthy of glory.

When he was in Mesopotamia. It is well known that that is called by this name which lieth between the river Tigris and Euphrates; and he saith before, he dwelt in Charran, because Abraham, being warned by an oracle, fled (371) from Chaldea to Charran, which is a city of Mesopotamia, famous by reason of the slaughter of Crassus and the Roman army; although Pliny saith that it was a city of Arabia; and it is no marvel that Chaldea is in this place comprehended under the name of Mesopotamia, because, although that region, which is enclosed with Tigris and Euphrates, [Mesopotamia,] be properly the country between two rivers, yet those which set down any description of countries (372) do call both Assyria and Chaldea by this name.

The sum is this, that Abraham being commanded by God, did forsake his country, and so he was prevented with the mere goodness of God when as he sought that which was offered him at home of the [its] own accord. Read the last chapter of Joshua; but it seemeth that Moses’ narration doth somewhat disagree with this, for after that, about the end of the 11th chapter of Genesis, he had declared, that Abraham doth [did] go into another country to dwell, having left his house, he addeth, in the beginning of the 12th, that God spake unto Abraham. This is easily

answered, for Moses reciteth not in this latter place what happened after the departure of Abraham; but lest any man should think that Abraham wandered into other countries, having unadvisedly forsaken his own house, (as light and indiscreet men (373) used to do sometimes,) he showeth the cause of his departure, to wit, because he was commanded by God to flit into another place. And thus much do the words of the oracle import. For, if he had been a stranger in another country, God could not have commanded him to depart out of his native soil, forsaking his kinsmen and father’s house. Therefore, we see that this place agreeth wondrous well with the words of Moses. For after that Moses hath said that Abraham went to Charran, to the end he may show that this journey was taken in hand, not through any lightness of man, but at the commandment of God, he addeth that afterwards which he had before omitted, which manner of speaking is much used of the Hebrews.

COFFMA, "Get thee out of thy land ... The young church was about to be scattered; and it was timely for the speaker to focus upon the fact that the father of all the faithful had also been called to get out of his native land and follow the call of the God of glory. On that very day when Stephen spoke, countless numbers of the Christians would say goodbye to Jerusalem forever. Significantly, God's call of Abraham took place in a pagan land, not in Palestine.

COKE, "Acts 7:2. And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers,— Dr. Benson has illustrated this speech of St. Stephen in a large and very judicious manner, to whom we shall be frequently obliged; and the following introductory remarks from Dr. Ward's 39th Dissertation will serve to shew its general propriety. The charge brought against Stephen, says he, consisted of two parts: that Jesus of azareth would destroy the temple where they were then assembled, and change the rites of Moses, Ch. Acts 6:14. The foundation of this charge seems to have been, that Stephen, in disputing with them, had plainly proved, that Jesus was the Messiah. Hence his accusers inferred their charge, fixing upon him their own consequences as his affections, and that with a design to take away his life, for which reason they might justly be called false witnesses, Acts 7:13. But though Stephen had not directly asserted these things, yet were they true in themselves, and might be inferred from the law and the prophets (Deuteronomy 15.). He could not therefore deny them; and to have owned them in express terms, would have been to give himself up to their rage and fury. The method therefore which he takes in his defence is, first, to shew them, from theirwritings, that all their former dispensations were to issue in that of the Messiah; and he begins with God's calling Abraham from his country and family, and promising to him and his posterity the land of Canaan for a possession; and it is remarkable, that he does not call it an everlasting possession, as it is called Genesis 17:8 which might have seemed not so consistent with their forfeiture of it upon their rejecting the Messiah. Then he observes to them, how their fathers rejected Moses, after the clearest proofs of his mission, and that they were punished for it in the wilderness; and this he does, to prepare them to consider what they might justly expect upon rejecting Christ. He reminds them likewise, that Moses himself had declared to them, that another prophet was to

arise, like him, whom they were ordered to hear. This was the Messiah; and his being like to Moses must consist in his bringing in a new dispensation, and confirming it with miracles, as Moses had done. This seems to respect the latter article of the charge;—and thus farthey heard him patiently. He then proceeds to speak of the temple, which relates to the former part of the accusation: and here he uses such depreciating expressions, as, though taken from the prophets, could not be agreeable to them, and very probably inflamed their minds; but when he came to charge them with the murder of Jesus, calling him the Just One, that is, the Messiah, they could no longer bear with him; but their passions rose to such a height, that they gnashed their teeth at him, and very probably made such a disturbance, that he could not proceed in what he designed to say further; though we find that Peter had twice before taken the same method, and charged them as expressly with the death of Jesus, Ch. 2: and 4: but Peter had, in both cases, the advantage of a present miracle to support him, and give weight to what he said; and we find that the council were deterred by that from proceeding to extremities, Ch. Acts 4:16. The Jewish rulers, before our Saviour's death, were apprehensive that he designed, by gaining over the populace, to set himself up for a king; and that, in consequence of this, the Romans would come and destroy their city, John 11:48. This they hoped to prevent, by taking him off; but, after his death, finding that the apostles not only went on to propagate the same theme of religion, and support it with miracles, as he had done, but also charged them with murdering him, whom his followers asserted to be the Messiah, they seemed now to be more immediately concerned for their own security. However, at first they endeavour to prevent the spreading of this doctrine, and to deter the preachers of it by less severities, as in the case of Peter and John; but when they found that those would not do, it is not improbable they might resolve upon greater; and thinking Stephen a proper subject for their purpose, might determine, if possible, to take away his life; which seems more likely from Ch. Acts 5:33 where it is said, that the Jewish senate took counsel to slay the apostles, as if they had not been dissuaded by Gamaliel. However, as that could not have been done judicially, and in form of law, but by a trial before the Roman governor, who might not think their charge against him sufficientto put him to death, there might be a particular design of Providence thus to honour himwith being the first martyr for Christianity, and permit him to be taken off in such a manner, as drew no civil disorders after it. For we do not find that any notice was taken of this fact by the Roman governor; though one would think that he could hardly have omitted to make some inquiries about it. But it was easy for the council to allege in their excuse, that indeed they did call that man to an account for some offences against their law, who was so far from clearing himself, that he persisted in them with blasphemy, which was a crime of so heinous a nature with them, that they could not restrain the mob from dragging him out, and stoning him immediately. Upon such a representation, the governor might think it more advisable to drop any further inquiry, than by proceeding in it to inflame so turbulent a nation. Upon the whole, this speech of Stephen, so far as it goes, seems to be a proper reply to the charge laid against him; but what he would have added further, if he had not been prevented, may be difficult to say. By the methods taken to bring about this charge, and the behaviour of the Jews at the trial, it seems probable, that the council designed, if possible, to take away his life, as a terror to others; and Divine Providence, for wise

ends, thought fit to permit them to accomplish their design.

COSTABLE, "Stephen called for the Sanhedrin's attention, addressing his hearers respectfully as "brethren and fathers" (cf. Acts 22:1). These men were his brethren, in that they were fellow Jews, and fathers, in that they were older leaders of the nation.

He took the title "God of glory" from Psalms 29:2 where it occurs in a context of God revealing His glory by speaking powerfully and majestically. God had revealed His glory by speaking this way to their father (ancestor) Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia (cf. Genesis 15:7; ehemiah 9:7). Genesis 12:1-3 records God's instruction for Abraham to leave his homeland to go to a foreign country that God would show him. Stephen was quoting from the Septuagint translation of Genesis 12:1. [ote: Barrett, p. 342.] According to Rackham, this is one of 15 historical problems in Stephen's speech, but these problems include additions to previous revelation as well as apparent contradictions. [ote: Rackham, pp. 99-102. See Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 378-82, for suggested solutions to problems in Acts 7:4; Acts 7:14; Acts 7:16; Acts 7:43.]

At least three solutions are possible. First, Stephen may have been referring to a Jewish tradition that God first called Abraham in Ur. Second, he may have been telescoping Abraham's moves from Ur and Haran and viewing them as one event. Third, he may have viewed Genesis 15:7 as implying Abraham's initial call to leave Ur. [ote: See Bock, Acts, pp. 282-83.]

God directed Abraham to a promised land. The Promised Land had become a Holy Land to the Jews, and in Stephen's day the Jews venerated it too greatly. We see this in the fact that they looked down on Hellenistic Jews, such as Stephen, who had not lived there all their lives. What was a good gift from God, the land, had become a source of inordinate pride that made the Jews conclude that orthodoxy was bound up with being in the land.

2. Stephen's address 7:2-53

As a Hellenistic Jew, Stephen possessed a clearer vision of the universal implications of the gospel than did most of the Hebraic Jews. It was this breadth of vision that drew attack from the more temple-bound Jews in Jerusalem and led to his arrest. His address was not a personal defense designed to secure his acquittal by the Sanhedrin. It was instead an apologetic for the new way of worship that Jesus taught and His followers embraced.

"On the surface it appears to be a rather tedious recital of Jewish history [cf. Acts 13:16-33] which has little relevance to the charges on which Stephen has been brought to trial; on closer study, however, it reveals itself as a subtile and skilful proclamation of the Gospel which, in its criticism of Jewish institutions, marks the beginning of the break between Judaism and Christianity, and points forward to the more trenchant exposition of the difference between the old faith and the new as

expressed by Paul and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews." [ote: eil, pp. 107-8.]Luke evidently recorded this speech, the longest one in Acts, to explain and defend this new way of worship quite fully. He showed that the disciples of Jesus were carrying on God's plan whereas the unbelieving Jews had committed themselves to beliefs and behavior that God had left behind and disapproved. The story of his speech opens with a reference to the God of glory (Acts 7:2), and it closes with mention of the glory of God (Acts 7:55).

The form of Stephen's defense was common in his culture, but it is uncommon in western culture. He reviewed the history of Israel and highlighted elements of that history that supported his contentions. He built it mainly around outstanding personalities: Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and, to a lesser degree, David and Solomon. The first section (Acts 7:2-16) deals with Israel's patriarchal period and refutes the charge of blaspheming God (Acts 6:11). The second major section (Acts 7:17-43) deals with Moses and the Law and responds to the charge of blaspheming Moses (Acts 6:11) and speaking against the Law (Acts 6:13). The third section (Acts 7:44-50) deals with the temple and responds to the charge of speaking against the temple (Acts 6:13) and saying that Jesus would destroy the temple and alter Jewish customs (Acts 6:14). Stephen then climaxed his address with an indictment of his hard-hearted hearers (Acts 7:51-53). Longenecker believed Stephen's main subjects were the land (Acts 7:2-36), the Law (Acts 7:37-43), and the temple (Acts 7:44-50), plus a concluding indictment (Acts 7:51-53). [ote: Longenecker, pp. 337-48. For a rhetorical analysis of Stephen's forensic oratory, see Witherington, p. 260-66.]

"Stephen . . . was endeavoring to show how the Christian message was fully consistent with and the culmination of OT revelation." [ote: Kent, p. 66.]Stephen's purpose was also to show that Jesus experienced the same things Abraham, Joseph, and Moses had experienced as God's anointed servants. As the Sanhedrin recognized them as men whom God had anointed for the blessing of Israel and the world, so should they recognize Jesus. The people to whom these three patriarchs went as God's representatives all initially rejected them but later accepted them, which is also Jesus' history.

Stephen quoted from the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament. This was the translation most commonly used by Hellenistic Jews such as himself. His selective history of Israel stressed the points that he wanted to make.

"In this discourse three ideas run like cords through its fabric:"1. There is progress and change in God's program....2. The blessings of God are not limited to the land of Israel and the temple area...."3. Israel in its past always evidenced a pattern of opposition to God's plans and His men." [ote: Toussaint, "Acts," p. 369. Italics omitted.]

PETT 2-3, "‘And he said, “Brethren and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared

to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get you out of your land, and from your kindred, and come into the land which I shall show you.’ ” ’

Stephen begins his reply in a conciliating way, ‘brethren and fathers’. He is affirming his oneness with them as a Jew, and giving respect to those in authority. Then he asks them to ‘listen’, and consider his defence.

He continues his introduction by using a title for God which indicated deep reverence. He calls Him ‘the God of glory’. This idea lay at the heart of Jewish views about God. He was the God of the Shekinah. This phrase would be well known to his hearers and is taken from Psalms 29:3. It stands there in conjunction with an ascription of glory to God which is such that it could only serve to repudiate any charge of dishonouring God. By it he portrays the highest possible view of God. The full context reads (Psalms 29:1-3):

“Ascribe to Yahweh, O you sons of the mighty,Ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due to his name;Worship Yahweh in holy array.The voice of Yahweh is on the waters.The God of glorythunders,Even Yahweh on many waters.”o one could doubt there his deep regard for God and His name. Then he moves on to explain what according to his beliefs the God of glory had done.

‘The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get you out of your land, and from your kindred, and come into the land which I shall show you.’ We are probably intended to see the reference to ‘Mesopotamia’ (the land between the Rivers), spoken of in Acts 7:4 as ‘the land of the Chaldaeans’, as significant. ‘The Chaldaeans’ were by this time remembered for their magic and sorcery and mysterious religious practises, and their land had ever been seen as ominously important because it was there that the first godless empire was founded (Genesis 10:9-12) and it was there that they offended God with the tower which was the result of their God-provoking aspirations (Genesis 11:1-9). It was the land of rebellion and of the occult (see Isaiah 47:12-13). Isaiah constantly revealed Babylon as the great blasphemer and anti-God that had had to be destroyed (Isaiah 13:19-20; Isaiah 14:14-20; Isaiah 47:7-15). It was from such a background, says Stephen, that God called out Abraham in His first act of deliverance for His people.

He ‘appeared to Abraham.’ This was the first of a number of such theophanies which Abraham would be privileged to enjoy. It was an act of sovereign graciousness, and Stephen is concerned that his hearers remember that when God had appeared to Abraham it was while he was at Babylon, the very centre of all opposition to God. Haran was neighbouring country to Canaan, but it was Mesopotamia that had always been the grim far off enemy (compare Genesis 14:1).

‘When he was in Mesopotamia.’ Had we had only the Genesis text to go by, it might not be so apparent that it first happened in Mesopotamia. For while Genesis 12:1 does inform us that God said to Abraham, ‘Get you out of your land, and from your kindred, and come into the land which I shall show you’, when examined in the context of Genesis the statement appears to follow the description of the death of Terah in Haran (Genesis 11:32), and to be connected with that (Genesis 12:4) rather than with the departure from Ur.

However, Jewish tradition saw the statement as referring back to Ur, and the connection of the statement with what has gone before is in fact loose, for in Genesis the purpose of the statement in Acts 12:1, which is addressed to Abraham and not to Terah, is more in order to introduce what follows, than to tie in with what has gone before. What went before was simply a general statement of Terah’s historical movement from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran, with a view to entering Canaan, an aim which he did not achieve, and the Lord is not portrayed as having said anything about this to Terah who was an idol worshiper (Joshua 24:14). evertheless it is quite clear in Genesis that Terah’s intention to enter Canaan had been formulated at Ur, and the assumption would be made that God was overall behind it. That is why it is mentioned. o one would therefore doubt that it was then also that God’s intention had started for Abraham had started, for they saw God as sovereign over all.

That being so the Jews read Acts 12:1 back to this intention. As Hebrew verbs are not time-specific, reading the opening verb with the equivalent significance of ‘the Lord had said’ meant that it was quite possible for it to be seen by Jewish interpreters as quite reasonable to relate the statement to God’s continual purpose for Abraham right from the beginning in Ur, and to see it as covering the whole. And that that was how Jews in general did see it is confirmed in both Philo and Josephus.

They therefore argued that God had had a purpose for Abraham from the time of Ur onwards, and thus that the words of God in Acts 12:1 could be applied back to there. or can it be doubted that it had been God’s purpose in Ur that Abraham should arrive in Canaan. That is something that the writer in Genesis would certainly have agreed was true, as would Stephen’s hearers. To them nothing like this could have happened by accident, for in the end God was behind all such decisions. That is why the same idea connecting Abraham’s departure with Ur is found in Philo and Josephus, and it was a generally held view among the Jews that God had spoken to Abraham right from the beginning.

Stephen certainly wants us to see that this first break with Babylon came in obedience to God’s command and purpose, in readiness for his later reference to Israel’s return ‘beyond Babylon’ in unbelief (Acts 7:43) which was to be seen as the result of disobedience and rejection of His purpose. There is an intentional comparison between Abraham’s obedience in leaving Babylon (expressing the name in other terms in order avoid the stigma attached to the name) and its idolatry, as

contrasting right from the start of his speech with Israel’s later disobedience in turning to idolatry, which finally resulted in the return to Babylon, and a further comparison between Abraham’s willing rejection of Babylon as contrasted with Israel’s helpless acceptance of it.

From Abraham to the Prophet Like Moses - Reply To The Charge of Blasphemy Against God and Moses (7:2-43).

The only way Stephen had of replying to charges of blasphemy when he had no supporting witnesses was to make clear what his whole theological position was and demonmstrate that in fact it was his oponents who were open to the charges. And that he set out to do. It is noteworthy that the background to the speech, together with the first part of the speech takes up ideas which are then applied much later on. For example:

1) They had seen Stephen’s face as though it had been the face of an angel (Acts 6:15) and later the charge against them is that they ‘received the Law as ordained by angels and kept it not’ (Acts 7:53). God had again given them their opportunity to listen to His messenger (angel) and they rejected it.2) He commences his speech speaking of the God of glory (Acts 7:2) and the speech ends with a vision of the glory of God (Acts 7:55).3) Abraham was delivered by being called from the land of the Chaldaeans (Babylon) (Acts 7:4), and in the end his descendants were carried back beyond Babylon (Acts 7:43).4) Abraham and his seed were given the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8), but in the end their successor’s hearts were seen to be uncircumcised (Acts 7:51).In respect of 3) we may detect a further pattern which covers the first part of his defence:

a Abraham with his household goes out to freedom from idolatry, fleeing from Babylon (Acts 7:1-4 a).b Abraham’s descendants live outside the land free from idolatry, looking for their future hope (Acts 7:4-8).c Joseph the Deliverer from affliction is raised up, rejected, and finally delivers. The patriarchs are buried in the land (Acts 7:9-16).c Moses the Deliverer from affliction is raised up, rejected, and finally delivers. The people possess the land (Acts 7:17-38).b Abraham’s descendant’s live in the land and look to idols,(Acts 7:39-43 a).a Abraham’s descendants are returned to Babylon (Acts 7:43 b).

ELLICOTT, "(2) Men, brethren, and fathers.—The discourse which follows presents many aspects, each of special interest. (1) It is clearly an unfinished fragment, interrupted by the clamours of the by-standers (Acts 7:51)—the torso, as it were, of a great apologia. Its very incompleteness, the difficulty of tracing the argument as far as it goes, because we do not see how far it was meant to go, are indirect proofs that we have a true, though not necessarily a verbatim, report. A

later writer, composing a speech after the manner of Herodotus and Thucydides, would have made it a much more direct answer to the charges in the indictment. And this, in its turn, supplies a reasonable presumption in favour of other speeches reported by the same author. (2) Looking to the relations between St. Luke and St. Paul, and to the prominence of the latter among the accusers of Stephen, there is a strong probability that the report was derived from him. This is confirmed by some instances of remarkable parallelism between the speech and his later teaching. (Comp. Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24). (3) The speech is the first great survey of the history of Israel as a process of divine education—the first development from the lips of a human teacher of principles that had before been latent. As such, it contains the germs which were, in their turn, to be afterwards developed, on the one hand, by St. Paul in the Epistles known to be his, on the other hand by Apollos, or whoever was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) The speech is also remarkable as bringing together within a comparatively small compass a considerable number of real or seeming inaccuracies in the details of the history which is commented on. Whether they are real or apparent will be discussed as we deal with each of them. It is obvious that the results thus arrived at will form something like a crucial test of theories which men have formed as to the nature and limits of inspiration. (5) As Stephen was a Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jew, it is probable that the speech was delivered in Greek, and so far it confirms the inference which has been drawn from the Aramaic words specially recorded in our Lord’s teaching—“Ephphatha,” “Talitha cumi,” and the cry upon the cross—that He habitually used the former language, and that this was the medium of intercourse between the priests and Pilate. (See otes on Mark 5:41; Mark 7:34.)

The God of glory.—The opening words are an implied answer to the charge of blaspheming God. The name contained an allusive reference to the Shechinah, or cloud of glory, which was the symbol of the Presence of Jehovah. That was the “glory of the Lord.” He, in like manner, was the “Lord of glory.” (Comp. James 2:1.)

Before he dwelt in Charran.—We come, at the very outset, on one of the difficulties above referred to. Here the call of Abraham is spoken of as before he sojourned in Haran, or Charran, west of the Euphrates. In Genesis 12:1 it is first mentioned after Abraham’s removal thither. On the other hand, Genesis 15:7 speaks of God as bringing him “from Ur of the Chaldees”—i.e., from Mesopotamia, or the east of the Euphrates; and this is confirmed by Joshua 24:3, ehemiah 9:7. The language of writers contemporary with Stephen (Philo, De Abrah.; Jos. Ant. i. 7, § 1) lays stress, as he does, on the first call as well as the second. Here, accordingly, it cannot be said that the statement is at variance with the Old Testament narrative. The word Mesopotamia was used by the LXX., and has thence passed into later versions, for the Hebrew Aram-aharaim, “Syria of the two rivers” (Genesis 24:10; Deuteronomy 23:4; Judges 3:8), and, less accurately, for Padan-Aram in Genesis 25:20; Genesis 28:2; Genesis 28:5-6; where our version retains the Hebrew name.

3 ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you.’[a]

BARES, "And said unto him - How long this was said before he went is not recorded. Moses simply says that God had commanded him to go, Gen_12:1.

Thy kindred - Thy relatives, or family connections. It seems that “Terah” went with him as far as to Haran; but Abraham was apprised that he was to leave his family and to go almost alone.

Into the land ... - The country was yet unknown. The place was to be shown him. This is presented in the New Testament as a strong instance of faith, Heb_11:8-9. It was an act of “simple confidence” in God. And to leave his country and home; to go into a land of strangers, not knowing whither he went, required strong confidence in God. It is a simple illustration of what man is always required to do at the command of God. Thus, the gospel requires him to commit all to God; to yield body and soul to his disposal; to be ready at his command to forsake father, and mother, and friends, and houses, and lands, for the sake of the Lord Jesus, Luk_14:33; Mat_19:27, Mat_19:29. The trials which Abraham might have anticipated may be readily conceived. He was going, in a rude and barbarous age of the world, into a land of strangers. He was without arms or armies, and almost alone. He did not even know the nature or situation of the land, or the character of its inhabitants.

He had no title to it; no claim to urge; and he went depending on the simple promise of God that he would give it to him. He went, therefore, trusting simply to the promise of God. Thus, his conduct illustrated precisely what we are to do in reference to all our coming life, and to the eternity before us: We are to trust simply to the promise of God, and do what he requires. This is faith. In Abraham it was as simple and intelligible an operation of mind as ever occurs in any instance. Nor is faith in the Scriptures regarded as more mysterious than any other mental operation. If Abraham had seen all that was to result from his going into that land, it would have been a sufficient reason to induce him to do as he did. But God saw it; and Abraham was required to act just as if he had seen it all, and all the reasons why he was called. Upon the strength of God’s promises, Abraham was called to act. This was faith. It did not require him to act where there was “no reason” for his so acting, but where he did not see the reason. So in all cases of faith. If man could see all that God sees, he would perceive reasons for acting as God requires. But the reasons of things are often concealed, and man is required to act on the belief that God sees reasons why he should so act. To act under the proper impression of that truth which God presents is faith; as simple and intelligible as any other act or operation of the mind. See the notes on Mar_16:16.

GILL, "And said unto him,.... Not the words in Gen_12:1 for they were said in Haran, these in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt there, and besides, these are different from them; no mention is here made of getting out from his father's house, as there; because his father's house sent along with him, or rather he with them from

Mesopotamia to Haran:

get thee out of thy country; from Ur of the Chaldees, where he was born:

and from thy kindred; his relations that lived in the same place, who did not go along with him:

and come into the land which I shall show thee; not telling him the place whither he was to go; wherefore when he had his first call, and first set out, he knew not whither he went; see Heb_11:8. This was an emblem of the calling of the saints out of the world, from their former course of life, and from among their old companions and friends, to follow Christ whithersoever he is pleased to lead them; and who at last will bring them safe to the land afar off, the better and heavenly country.

CALVI, "3.Come out of thy country. God useth many words, to the end he may the more wound the mind of Abraham, as if it were not a thing sharp enough of itself to be banished out of his own country. And that served to try his faith; even as that other thing also, that God assigneth him no land wherein he may dwell, but maketh him stand in doubt, and wait for a time. Wherefore the obedience of Abraham was so much the more to be commended, because the sweetness of his native soil keepeth him not back from going willingly, as it were, into exile; and in that he doubteth not to follow God, although there appear no certain resting-place, but is commanded to wander to and fro for a time. Whereas, the showing of the land is deferred, it differeth not much from deceiving of him. (374)

Furthermore, we learn continually by our own experience how profitable it was for Abraham thus to be exercised, and, as it were, trained by little and little. Many men are carried with a godly affection to attempt great things, but by and by, so soon as their heat is waxen cold, it repenteth them of their purpose, and they would gladly slip their necks out of the collar. (375) Therefore, lest Abraham should faint when he was in the midst of his course, through the remembrance of those things which he had left behind him, God sifteth and trieth his mind thoroughly, immediately after he had begun, lest he take anything in hand lightly and unadvisedly. To this purpose serveth the parable which Christ setteth before us concerning the building of the tower, (Luke 14:28.) For he teacheth that we must first cast the charges, lest with shame we be enforced to leave off building after we have begun. And though this were a particular thing in Abraham in that he was commanded to go out of his own country, and to go into a far country, in that God carried him from place to place, yet, notwithstanding, there is in these words some figure of the calling of us all. We are not all simply commanded to forsake our country, but we are commanded to deny ourselves; we are not commanded to come out of our father’s house, but to bid adieu to our own will, and to the desires of our own flesh. Again, if father and mother, wife and children, hinder us from following God, we must forsake them all. The commandment is given simply to Abraham to flit; but we are commanded to do the stone upon condition. For if in any place we cannot serve God, we must rather make choice of exile than to stay in our nest, being slothful and sluggish. Therefore, let us have the example of Abraham always before our eyes. He is the father of the

faithful, he was tried all manner of ways. Doth he forget his country, his friends, and himself, that he may give over himself unto God? (Romans 4:16.) If we will be counted the children of God, we must not degenerate from him.

Which I shall show thee. We must note that which I touched a little before, that Abraham is kept in doubt, to the end his patience may be tried. And this must we also apply to our own use, that we may learn to depend wholly upon God. And surely this is a principal exercise of our faith to put our trust in God, even when we see nothing. God, indeed, will oftentimes show us a land wherein he granteth us an abiding-place; yet, notwithstanding, because we are strangers in the world, we have no certain and continual place of abode anywhere. Again, our life, as Paul saith, is hid, (Colossians 3:3;) and being like unto dead men, we hope for salvation, which is hid in heaven. Therefore, as touching our perpetual habitation, God doth cause us to depend upon his providence alone, when he commandeth us, as it were, to wander in a strange country. Lest such deferring discourage us, we must hold this general rule of faith, that we must go whither God calleth us, howsoever he do not show that which he promiseth.

4 “So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Harran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living.

BARES, "Land of the Chaldeans - From Ur of the Chaldees, Gen_11:31.

When his father was dead - This passage has given rise to no small difficulty in the interpretation. The difficulty is this: From Gen_11:26, it would seem that Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years of age. “And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” From Gen_12:4, it seems that Abraham was 75 years of age when he departed from Haran to Canaan. The age of Terah was therefore but 145 years. Yet in Gen_11:32, it is said that Terah was 205 old when he died, thus leaving 60 years of Terah’s life beyond the time when Abraham left Haran. Various modes have been proposed of explaining this difficulty:

(1) Errors in “numbers” are more likely to occur than any other. In the “Samaritan” copy of the Pentateuch, it is said that Terah died in Haran at the age of 105 years, which would suppose that his death occurred 40 years before Abraham left Haran. But the Hebrew, Latin, Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic read it as 205 years.

(2) It is not affirmed that Abraham was born just at the time when Terah was 70 years of age. All that the passage in Gen_11:26 proves, according to the usual meaning of similar expressions, is, that Terah was 70 years old before he had any sons, and that the three were born subsequently to that. But which was born first or what intervals

intervened between their birth does not appear. Assuredly, it does not mean that all were born precisely at the time when Terah was 70 years of age. Neither does it appear that Abraham was the oldest of the three. The sons of Noah are said to have been Shem, Ham, and Japheth Gen_5:32; yet Japheth, though mentioned last, was the oldest, Gen_10:21. As Abraham afterward became much the most distinguished, and as he was the father of the Jewish people, of whom Moses was writing, it was natural that he should be mentioned first if it cannot be proveD that Abraham was the oldest, as assuredly it cannot be, then there is no improbability in supposing that his birth might have occurred many years after Terah was 70 years of age.

(3) The Jews unanimously affirm that Terah relapsed into idolatry before Abraham left Haran; and this they denominate “death,” or a moral death (Kuinoel). It is certain, therefore, that, from some cause, they were accustomed to speak of Terah as “dead” before Abraham left him. Stephen only used language which was customary among the Jews, and would employ it, doubtless, correctly, though we may not be able to see precisely how it can be reconciled with the account in Genesis.

CLARKE, "When his father was dead - See the note on Gen_11:26.

GILL, "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans,.... The same with Mesopotamia; so Pliny says (b), that

"because of Babylon the head of the Chaldean nation---the other part of Mesopotamia and Assyria is called Babylonia.''

And he places Babylon in Mesopotamia; it was out of Ur, in the land of the Chaldeans particularly, that Abraham came, upon his first call:

and dwelt in Charan: according to the Jewish writers (c), he dwelt here five years:

and from thence, when his father was dead; who died in Haran, as is said in Gen_11:32 and that it was after the death of Terah his father, that Abraham went from thence, is manifest from Gen_11:31 and yet a Jew (d) has the impudence to charge Stephen with a mistake, and to affirm, that Abraham went from Haran, whilst his father was yet living; proceeding upon a false hypothesis, that Terah begat Abraham when he was seventy years of age: but Philo the Jew is expressly with Stephen in this circumstance; he says (e),

"I think no man versed in the laws can be ignorant, that Abraham, when he first went

out of the land of Chaldea, dwelt in Charan; τελευτησαντος�τε�αυτω�του�πατρος�εκενθι "but his father dying there", he removed from thence:''

and so says Stephen:

he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell; the land of Canaan; see Gen_12:5 or "he removed himself", as the Ethiopic version renders it; or rather "God removed him", as the Syriac version reads, and so one copy in the Bodleian library; for it was by the order and assistance, and under the direction and protection of God, that he

came into that land: after the words

wherein ye now dwell, Beza's ancient copy adds, "and our fathers that were before us".

(b) De Urbibus, l. 6. c. 26. (c) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 1. p. 2. Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 5. 2. (d) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 61. p. 448. (e) De Migratione Abrahami, p. 415.

JAMISO,"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.

CALVI, "4.Then going out. The readiness and willingness of faith is commended in these words. For when he is called he maketh no delay, but maketh haste (376) and subdueth all his affections, that they may obey the holy commandment of God. It is uncertain for what cause he stayed at Charran; yet it may be that the weakness of his father caused him to tarry there, who, as we read, died there shortly after; or else, because he durst go no further, until such time as the Lord had told him whither he should go. It is more like to be true in mine opinion, that he was stayed there a while with the wearisomeness and sickness of his father, because Stephen saith plainly that he was brought thence after the death of his father.

BESO, "Acts 7:4-5. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans — Strange as the command which was given him might seem, he, with all submission, readily obeyed it; and dwelt in Charran — amely, for several years, having been led thither by the divine conduct, and not immediately receiving a signal to proceed any further. And from thence — After his father died, by another call; he (God) removed him into this land — The land of Canaan. And yet, upon his coming into it, he gave him none inheritance — But he was a stranger and sojourner in it; no, not so much as to set his foot on — Or a piece of land which he might cover with the sole of his foot: for the field mentioned, Acts 7:16, he did not receive by a divine donation, but bought it; yet he promised — At sundry times; that he would give it to him for a possession — Which promise Abraham firmly believed that God would fulfil; and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child — And, humanly speaking, it was not likely he ever should have one: but his faith triumphed over all these seeming difficulties, and he confidently trusted in the power, and love, and faithfulness of God to make his word good.

COKE, "Acts 7:4. And from thence; when his father was dead, &c.— See Genesis 26:32. Abraham was not Terah's eldest, but his youngest son; though, by way of honour and distinction, Moses has mentioned him the first of the three, as being the great patriarch of the Jewish nation. For Haran was Terah's eldest son, who died in Ur of the Chaldees, his native country; and who left a daughter, called Milcah, old enough to be married to ahor. When therefore Terah was seventy years of age,

then was Haran born, being his eldest son; ahor, his second son, was born some years after; and Abraham, his youngest son, was born sixty years after his brother Haran, and when his father Terah was one hundred and thirty years of age. ow seventy-five added to one hundred and thirty, make up two hundred and five, the age at which Terah died in the land of Charran. See Archbishop Usher's Annals, A.M. 1948

COSTABLE, "Obeying God's call, Abraham left Mesopotamia, specifically Ur of the Chaldeans (cf. Genesis 15:7; Joshua 24:3; ehemiah 9:7), and settled temporarily in Haran, near the top of the Fertile Crescent. After Abraham's father Terah died, God directed Abraham south into Canaan, the land the Jews occupied in Stephen's day (Genesis 12:5).

"A comparison of the data in Genesis (Genesis 11:26; Genesis 11:32; Genesis 12:4) seems to indicate that Terah lived another 60 years after Abraham left [Haran].... The best solution seems to be that Abraham was not the oldest son of Terah, but was named first because he was the most prominent (Genesis 11:26)." [ote: Kent, p. 68.]"It is more likely that Stephen is using an old and alternate Jewish tradition here that has left its trace in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the possibility also exists that Genesis 11:26 should be read differently, so that the MT and the LXX are closer than it might appear." [ote: Bock, Acts, p. 284.]The father of Judaism was willing to depart from where he was to follow God into unknown territory on the word of God alone. The Jews in Stephen's day were not willing to depart from where they were in their thinking even though God's word was leading them to do so, as Stephen would point out. Stephen wanted them to follow Abraham's good example of faith and courage.

PETT, "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Haran, and from there, when his father was dead, God removed him into this land, in which you now dwell,’

So Abraham had left behind him the land of the Chaldaeans at God’s command and had dwelt in Haran. And from there he had later, when his father was dead, removed into Canaan. ote the two stages in his journey, only the second of which brought him ‘home’. This compares later with the two visits of the brothers to Egypt only the second of which resulted in their knowing Joseph (Acts 7:12-13), and the two appearances to his people by Moses, only the second of which resulted in his acceptance as deliverer (Acts 7:27; Acts 7:35). This was Stephen’s way of making palatable to his hearers the possibility of conversion to Jesus Christ, even though they had not at first recognised Him. They too could take the second chance.

‘When his father was dead.’ Even though Abraham may have take his flocks into Canaan well before this, it would have been unfilial to show him as permanently leaving his father’s household while his father was alive. It would be considered that if, while acting as a shepherd, he had taken his flocks and his household to Canaan

this would, while his father was still alive, only have been seen as ‘temporary’. It was only when his father was dead that the ties could be cut. Compare Jacob’s ‘temporary’ move to Paddan-Aram which lasted over twenty years, but always with the thought that he would return, and the movements of Jacob’s sons as they fed their flocks in various places constantly away from ‘home’, so that Joseph had to travel quite a distance in order to visit them. But always the contact remained with ‘home’. The place to which they had gone was never ‘home’. In the same way Abraham would still, as a dutiful son, essentially be seen as subject to Terah’s summons to return. Where Terah was would still be his ‘home’. It would only be his father’s death that would finally make Canaan ‘home’. It was at that stage that Abraham would finally and firmly be settled in the land never to return to his father’s household.

We may also note the possibility that Abraham was mentioned first of the three sons in Genesis 11:26 only because of his prominence in the ensuing narrative, rather than because he was the eldest son. Thus the son born when Terah was ‘seventy’ may have been ahor or Haran. (It was after all ahor who was named after his grandfather, and Haran had a grown up daughter for ahor to marry). Abraham may have been born much later and have been the youngster. Thus if we were to take the numbers literally we might see Abraham as having been born when Terah was one hundred and thirty.

However, this assumes that the numbers were intended to be taken literally, and with ancient numbers that is always doubtful, especially when they are round numbers. umbers were used to convey information, and not necessarily numerical information. Indeed it will be noted that all the numbers in the narrative are in fact round numbers (to the early Hebrews numbers ending in five appear to have been round numbers). Thus seventy may have indicated simply the divine perfection of Abraham’s birth (taken literally seventy would have been very late in time for the bearing of a firstborn) while two hundred and five may have represented ‘two hundred’ as dying in middle age (thus not three hundred which would represent old age) with the five indicating covenant connection because of his connection with Abraham, the man of the covenant. Seventy five could then again signify the seventy of divine perfection with again covenant connection (note how many ages in the early list of patriarchs ended in five).

ELLICOTT, "(4) From thence, when his father was dead.—In Genesis 11:26; Genesis 11:32, Terah, the father of Abraham, is said to have died at the age of 205 years, and after he had reached the age of seventy to have begotten Abram, ahor, and Haran; while Abraham in Genesis 12:4 is said to have been seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran. This, primâ facie, suggests the conclusion that he lived for sixty years after his son’s departure. The explanations sometimes given—(1) that Abraham may have been the youngest, not the eldest son of Terah, placed first in order of honour, not of time, as Shem is among the sons of oah (Genesis 5:32; Genesis 6:10), though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21); and (2) that the marriage of Abraham’s son with the granddaughter of ahor by the

youngest of his eight sons, Bethuel (Genesis 22:22), suggests some such difference of age, and that he may therefore have been born when Terah was 130, and so have remained in Haran till his father’s death—though probable as an hypothesis, would hardly appear so natural an explanation as that the memory of St. Stephen or of his reporter dwelt upon the broad outlines of the history, and was indifferent to chronological details. It is remarkable that like difficulties present themselves in St. Paul’s own survey of the history of Israel. (See otes on Acts 13:20; Galatians 3:17.) A man speaking for his life, and pleading for the truth with a passionate eagerness, does not commonly carry with him a memoria technica of chronological minutiœ. This seems, on the whole, a more satisfactory explanation than the assumption that the Apostle, having a clear recollection of the facts as we find them, brought them before his hearers in a form which presented at least the appearance of inaccuracy.

He removed him.—The change of subject may be noted as more natural in a speaker than a writer, and as so far confirming the inference that we have probably a verbatim report.

5 He gave him no inheritance here, not even enough ground to set his foot on. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child.

BARES, "And he gave him none inheritance - Abraham led a wandering life; and this passage means that he did not himself receive a permanent possession or residence in that land. The only land which he owned was the field which he “purchased” of the children of Heth for a burial place, Gen. 23: As this was obtained by “purchase,” and not by the direct gift of God, and as it was not designed for a “residence,” it is said that God gave him no “inheritance.” It is mentioned as a strong instance of his faith that he should remain there without a permanent residence himself, with only the prospect that his children, at some distant period, would inherit it.

Not so much as to set his foot on - This is a proverbial expression, denoting in an emphatic manner that he had no land, Deu_2:5.

Would give it to him - Gen_13:15. Abraham did not himself possess all that land; and the promise is evidently equivalent to saying that it would be conferred on the family of Abraham, or the family of which he was the father, without affirming that “he” would

himself personally possess it. It is true, however, that Abraham himself afterward dwelt many years in that land as his home, Gen. 13, etc.

For a possession - To be held as his own property.

When as yet he had no child -When there was no human probability that he would have any posterity. Compare Gen_15:2-3; Gen_18:11-12. This is mentioned as a strong instance of his faith; “who against hope believed in hope,” Rom_4:18.

CLARKE, "Gave him none inheritance - Both Abraham and Jacob had small parcels of land in Canaan; but they had them by purchase, not by God’s gift; for, as Abraham was obliged to buy a burying-place in Canaan, Genesis 23:3-18, it is obvious he had no inheritance there.

And to his seed after him - See Gen_12:7 (note); Gen_13:15, and the notes there.

GILL, "And he gave him none inheritance in it,.... To be personally enjoyed by him; and which was a great trial to Abraham's faith, to be brought out of his country, and into another land, and which was promised to him and his; and yet, as not the whole, so not a single part of it was given him to possess:

no, not so much as to set his foot on: so that when Sarah his wife died, he was obliged to buy a piece of ground for a burying place to bury her in: and which could not be said to be given him by the Lord, for he bought it with his money:

yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child; which was another exercise of Abraham's faith, that he should have a whole country promised him and his seed, and yet had no seed given him; see Gen_12:7.

HERY, "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.

CALVI, "5.We must note three firings in this place; that God exercised the patience of his servant, because, after that he had brought him out of his own country, he dwelt in the land of Canaan as a stranger.

[First,] For Abraham possessed not one foot’s-breadth, save only that which he bought to bury in. And that is counted no possession which serveth not for the uses of this life. Secondly, forasmuch as that field was bought, Stephen doth for good causes say, that God gave Abraham nothing. For that could not be gotten either with money, or by any other means which man could invent, which Abraham did hope for of the promise.

Secondly, we must note, that though God did not show Abraham the thing itself as yet, yet did he uphold him by his word. And this is our stay, when God promiseth that that is laid up for us which as yet we possess not. Therefore, when as the thing, that is, the possession of the land, was wanting, Abraham had for his help and stay the promise of God; and being content with the same alone, he desired nothing in the land of Canaan save only an uncertain resting-place wherein he might sojourn.

For as much as [ επαγγελλεσθαι ] signifieth simply to promise, I thought there was no cause why, with Erasmus, I should translate it in this place, to promise again. For I resolve it adversatively, although he had promised, that by the way we may note as it were, a show of deceiving, (377) unless peradventure some man be disposed to apply it unto the promises which are oftentimes repeated. (378)

Thirdly, we must note that the promise was such that it did not much differ from a mere mock. God promised the land to the seed of Abraham when he was fourscore years old, and had to wife one that was barren, neither had he any hope to have any issue. This seemeth to be more than frivolous. For why doth he not rather promise that he will give him seed? But this was a notable trial of faith, in that Abraham, without asking any question, or any curious disputation, did obediently and meekly embrace that which he had heard proceed out of the mouth of the Lord. Therefore, let us remember that God doth so lift up and comfort his servant with his word, that he doth not only defer the giving of the thing, (379) but also he may seem after a sort to mock him; as he dealeth with us also in some respect. For, although he call us the heirs of the world, (James 2:5,) he suffereth us oftentimes to want even a competent living and necessary helps. And this doth he of set purpose, that he may bring the wisdom of the flesh to nought, seeing that we do not otherwise give due honor to his word.

COFFMA, "one inheritance in it ... "The gift was not to Abraham personally, but to him as the founder and representative of the nation."[6] The only part of Palestine that Abraham ever owned was the cave of Machpelah which he purchased for a grave.

Four hundred years ... This is one of the pseudocons! Exodus 12:40,41 gives the time as 430 years; but "The four hundred years is a round number as in Genesis 15:13."[7] Also, there were two ways of counting the "sojourning," these being (1) from the call of Abraham to the Exodus which was 430 years, and (2) from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus which was 400 years.[8] The bicentennial of the United States may be counted either from the Declaration of Independence, or from the ratification of the constitution. It is ridiculous to make anything out of such so-called discrepancies as these.

Perhaps Stephen intended that his hearers should notice that even the covenant of circumcision was given long before Moses or the law.

(i)

[6] John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (ashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 318.

[7] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 216.

[8] B. W. Johnson, otes on the ew Testament (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 441.

COKE, "Acts 7:5. And he gave him none inheritance in it, &c.— Probably Canaan was not at that time so universally given to idolatry as Chaldea; for there Abraham met with Melchisedech, who was a worshipper of the true God; and as he was a

king, very likely his subjects were not idolaters; but in Chaldea idolatry must have had a large spread, when Terah's family, nay, and most likely Abraham himself, was infected; for St. Paul calls him, Romans 4:5. τον ασεβη, an ungodly person, or an idolater; for that is the word by which he usually intends to signify an idolater. Therefore the calling Abraham into Canaan at that time, was a likely method to preserve him from the further infection of idolatry, as it removed him from his kindred, who would have been apt to have tempted him more than strangers;—and as he was directed to a land where idolatry had not then spread so much. ay, yet further to deter Abraham, God intimated to him, that in some future generations that very land of Canaan should become notorious for idolatry, and then God would take it from the inhabitants, and give it to him for a possession, even to his seed after him; for so the sentence should properly be read. It is plain that Abraham had not a foot of land in Canaan; for he bought a burying-place to bury his dead.

COSTABLE, "Stephen also contrasted Abraham's lack of inheritance in the land with God's promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants as an inheritance (Genesis 12:7; cf. Hebrews 11:8). God promised this when the patriarch had no children. Thus the emphasis is on God's promise of future possession of the land through descendants to come. Of course, Abraham did possess the cave of Machpelah in Canaan (Genesis 23:3-20), but perhaps Stephen meant that God gave no continuing or full possession to Abraham.

The Jews of Stephen's day needed to realize that God had not exhausted His promises to Abraham in giving them what they presently had and valued so highly. There was greater inheritance to come, but it would come to future generations of their descendants, not to them. Specifically it would come to those who continued to follow Abraham's good example of faith by believing in Jesus. God sought to teach these Jews that there were spiritual descendants of Abraham who were not his physical descendants (Galatians 3:6-9; Galatians 3:29).

PETT, "‘And he gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on, and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.’

But even though Abraham had at last made Canaan his ‘home’ he had had no permanent possession in it. God had given him no inheritance there, not so much as one place to set his foot on (and say, ‘this is mine’). He walked alone with God, freed now from the influence of Babylon, the centre of idolatry and the occult, and freed from Haran where the moon god was worshipped, and tied to no land. Instead he was tied to God.

What, however, God did do was give the promise that one day it would belong to Abraham’s seed. It was a future hope, not a present possession. ote here how his seed possessing it is equated with him possessing it. He will possess it in his seed. And this promise was made even before Abraham had children. So the promise included the thought that he would have children. God was thus not calling

Abraham to possess the land. He was calling him to live in faith and trust. This is also made clear in Genesis 15:6, ‘and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness’. Stephen clearly did not see a graveyard and cave as even contributing to possession of the land (Genesis 23).

Thus Abraham is seen as delivered from Babylon and with neither land nor family. What he possessed was freedom from idolatry so that he could worship where he would, along with the presence of God and future hope. He required nothing else.

6 God spoke to him in this way: ‘For four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated.

BARES, "And God spake on this wise - In this manner, Gen_15:13-14.

His seed - His posterity; his descendants.

Should sojourn - This means that they would have a “temporary residence there.” The word is used in opposition to a fixed, permanent home, and is applied to travelers, or foreigners.

In a strange land - In the Hebrew Gen_15:13, “Shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs.” The land of Canaan and the land of Egypt were strange lands to them, though the obvious reference here is to the latter.

Should bring them into bondage - Or, would make them slaves, Exo_1:11.

And entreat them evil -Would oppress or afflict them.

Four hundred years - This is the precise time which is mentioned by Moses, Gen_15:13. Great perplexity has been experienced in explaining this passage, or reconciling it with other statements. In Exo_12:40, it is said that their sojourning in Egypt was 430 years. Josephus (Antiq., book 2, chapter 9, section 1) also says that the time in which they were in Egypt was 400 years; though in another place (Antiq., book 2, chapter 15, section 2) he says that they left Egypt f 430 years after their forefather, Abraham, came to Canaan, but 215 years after Jacob removed to Egypt. Paul also Gal_3:17 says that it was 430 years from the time when the promise was given to Abraham to the time when the Law was given on Mount Sinai. The Samaritan Pentateuch also says Exo_12:40 that the “dwelling of the sons of Israel, and of their fathers, which they dwelt “in the land of Canaan,” and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.”

The same is the version of the Septuagint. “A part” of this perplexity is removed by the fact that Stephen and Moses use, in accordance with a very common custom, “round numbers” in speaking of it, and thus speak of 400 years when the literal time was 430.

The other perplexities are not so easily removed. From the account which Moses has given of the lives of certain persons, it would seem clear that the time which they spent in “Egypt” was not 400 years. From Gen_46:8, Gen_46:11, it appears that “Kohath” was born when Jacob went into Egypt. He lived 133 years, Exo_6:18. Amram, his son, and the father of Moses lived 137 years, Exo_6:20. Moses was 80 years old when he was sent to Pharaoh, Exo_7:7. The whole time thus mentioned, including the time in which the father lived after his son was born, was only 350 years. Exclusive of that, it is reasonable to suppose that the actual time of their being in Egypt could not have been but about 200 years, according to one account of Josephus. The question then is, how can these accounts be reconciled? The only satisfactory way is by supposing that the 430 years includes the whole time from the calling of Abraham to the departure from Egypt. And that this was the fact is probable from the following circumstances:

(1) The purpose of all the narratives on this subject is to trace the period before they became finally settled in the land of Canaan. During all this period from the calling of Abraham, they were in a wandering, unfixed situation. This constituted substantially one period, including all their oppressions, hardships, and dangers; and it was natural to have reference to this “entire” period in any account which was given.

(2) All this period was properly the period of “promise,” not of “possession.” In this respect the wanderings of Abraham and the oppressions of Egypt came under the same general description.

(3) Abraham was himself occasionally in Egypt. He was unsettled; and since Egypt was so pre-eminent in all their troubles, it was natural to speak of all their oppressions as having occurred in that country. The phrase “residence in Egypt,” or “in a strange land,” would come to be synonymous, and would denote all their oppressions and trials. They would speak of their sufferings as having been endured in Egypt, because their afflictions there were so much more prominent than before.

(4) All this receives countenance from the version of the Septuagint, and from the Samaritan text, showing the manner in which the ancient Jews were accustomed to understand it.

(5) It should be added, that difficulties of chronology are more likely to occur than any others; and it should not be deemed strange if there are perplexities of this kind found in ancient writings which we cannot explain. It is so in all ancient records; and all that is usually expected in relation to such difficulties is that we should be able to present a “probable” explanation.

CLARKE, "That his seed should sojourn in a strange land - See Gen_15:13, Gen_15:14.

Four hundred years -Moses says, Exo_12:40, that the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt - was 430 years. See the note there. St. Paul has the same number, Gal_3:17; and so has Josephus, Ant. lib. ii. cap. 1, sect. 9; in Bell. lib. v. cap. 9, sect. 4. St. Stephen uses the round number of 400, leaving out the odd tens, a thing very common, not only in the sacred writers, but in all others, those alone excepted who write professedly on chronological matters.

GILL, "And God spake on this wise,.... The Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, "and God spake to him", and so does one of Beza's copies; and the Ethiopic version reads it both ways, God "said thus to Abraham", as in Gen_15:13.

That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; or "be a stranger in a land not theirs"; first in the land of Canaan, and then in Egypt, which were possessed by other persons, the natives of them:

and that they should bring them into bondage; that is, the inhabitants of the lands, and particularly Egypt, should bring the seed of Abraham into bondage, as they did; and very hard bondage it was, at least some part of it:

and entreat them evil four hundred years; which must be reckoned not from the time of their going down into Egypt, which to their coming up out of it were but two hundred and ten years, but from the birth of Isaac: which was as soon as Abraham had the promised seed, and may be reckoned after this manner; from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob, sixty years, Gen_25:26 and from thence to the coming of Jacob into Egypt, one hundred and thirty years, Gen_47:9 and from thence to the coming of the children of Israel out of Egypt, two hundrd and ten years; which in all make up four hundred years; for the sojourning and evil entreating of Abraham's seed are not to be confined to the land of Egypt, but belong to other lands, where they were within this time, though that land is more especially intended; and so the Septuagint version renders the text in Exo_12:40. "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they (and some copies add, and their fathers) sojourned in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, were four hundred and thirty years": and this text is differently read in the Talmuds, in one of them thus (f); "and the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt

in Egypt", הארצות�ובכל, "and in all the lands, were four hundred and thirty years"; and in

the other of them thus (g), "and the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in

Egypt", ארצות�ובשאר, "and in the rest of the lands, were four hundred years"; upon which

latter the gloss has these words;

"from the time that the decree of the captivity was made between them to the birth of Isaac, were thirty years; and from the birth of Isaac, until the Israelites went out of Egypt, were four hundred years; take out of them the sixty of Isaac, and the one hundred and thirty that Jacob had lived when he went down into Egypt, and there remain two hundred and ten; and so is the decree, that "thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs", Gen_15:13 and it is not said in Egypt, but in a land not theirs; and when Isaac was born, Abraham was a sojourner in the land of the Philistines; and from thence, till they went out of Egypt, it will be found that Isaac and his seed who were the seed of Abraham, were strangers: and the thirty years before that are not numbered in the decree;''

CALVI, "6.Thy seed shall be a stranger. Stephen putteth the Jews in mind in how miserable and reproachful an estate their fathers were in Egypt; and showeth that this their servitude, wherewith they were oppressed, came not by chance; because it was foretold long before by the oracle of God. This history ought to have been of great force, partly to tame their lofty courages, (380) and to teach them modesty; partly to set forth the grace of God, because God had always had a care of that

nation. For this is a singular benefit, in that the people are restored wonderfully, as it were, from death to life. In the mean season, the Jews are taught that the Church of God was elsewhere than in the land wherein they dwelt; that the fathers were chosen to be a peculiar people, and that they were kept safe under the tuition of God, before ever the temple was built, or the external ceremonies of the law were instituted.

These things appertain unto the general scope or drift of the sermon. But hence may we gather a profitable admonition. Bondage is of itself hard and bitter; but when cruelty of masters is added thereunto, it seemeth to be intolerable. Wherefore, it must needs be that the mind of the godly man was sore wounded, when he heard that his seed should serve, and be villanously and cruelly entreated, Moreover, this was no small trial; forasmuch as these things were, to look to contrary—the inheritance of the land of Canaan which was now promised, and bondage in a strange country. For who would not have thought that God had, as it were, forgotten his former promise, when as he telleth Abraham that his seed shall endure miserable bondage? He saith, at the first, that he will give his seed the land. But he had as yet no seed; yea, all hope of seed was now cut off. But when doth he promise that he will give it? After his death. By and by he saith, that that seed should be carried away to another place, that it may serve strangers. And how long? Four hundred years. Doth he not seem, by this means, to pull back his hand, that he may not perform that which he had promised?

Let us know that this was done, (not once only,) for God dealeth oftentimes with us thus, so that he may seem contrary to himself; and he speaketh also in such sort as that he may seem to call back (381) that which he had promised. Therefore, it cannot be but that flesh will judge that he is contrary to himself; but faith doth know that his words do agree well together amongst themselves, and with his works. And this is the purpose of God, to the end he may extend the sight of our faith the farther, to show his promises afar off, as it were, a long place [space] being put between. Therefore it is our duty to go forward, and to strive to attain unto that salvation which is set before us through many straits, (382) through divers lets, through long distance, through the midst of deeps, and, finally, through death itself. Furthermore, seeing that we see that the people which God had chosen did serve the Egyptians, and was uncourteously (383) afflicted, we must not be discouraged if the like condition be prepared for us at this day. For it is no new thing, neither any unwonted thing, for the Church of God to lie oppressed under tyranny, and to be, as it were, trodden under foot of the wicked.

BESO, "Acts 7:6-8. And God spake, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land — When God had brought Abraham into this country, he did not keep him and his posterity here till the time when they were to enter upon the possession of it, in consequence of this divine grant; but, on the contrary, God informed him in a vision that his seed should be strangers in a foreign land, and that they among whom they sojourned should bring them into bondage — Should make them slaves; and entreat them evil — Use them with great cruelty; and that these events, with the

circumstances preparatory to them, should extend themselves to the full period of four hundred years. See note on Genesis 15:13. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage — By which they shall be enslaved; will I judge, said God — I will assuredly punish with righteous and tremendous severity; and after that shall they come forth — amely, out of that land; and serve me in this place — In this land, erecting a temple for the performance of my worship here. He gave him the covenant of circumcision — See notes on Genesis 17:10-14. And so Abraham begat Isaac — After the covenant was given, of which circumcision was the seal.

COKE, "Acts 7:6. Sojourn in a strange land;— Some think that this is said in opposition to their sojourning as strangers in the land of Canaan, Hebrews 11:9 which was not a strange land, but theirs by divine promise. But God himself teaches us otherwise, Exodus 6:4 where he calls Canaan the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they, that is, Abraham and his descendants, had hitherto been strangers; for they were not as yet possessed of it, though they had a good title to it. This is proper to be taken notice of, in order to explain what immediately follows. See the note on Genesis 15:13.

COSTABLE, "God also told Abraham that his offspring would be slaves and suffer mistreatment outside their land for 400 years (Genesis 15:13), namely, from the year their enslavement began, evidently 1845 B.C., to the Exodus, 1446 B.C. Some interpreters take the 400 years as a round number. [ote: See also Harold W. Hoehner, "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage," Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.]

The Israelites were currently under Roman oppression but were about to lose their freedom and experience antagonism outside the land for many years. Jesus had predicted this (Matthew 23:1 to Matthew 25:46).

PETT, "‘And God spoke in this vein, that his seed would sojourn in a strange land, and that they would bring them into bondage, and treat them ill, four hundred years.’

or did God promise immediate possession of the land for his seed. They also would be away from the land for four hundred years (Genesis 15:13). Thus it was clearly not their possession of the land that mattered, but that they were His people, with a future hope. They would indeed live in a strange land. And there they would in time be in bondage, and would be ill-treated (as Stephen and his hearers were being in Palestine at that time under Roman rule). The ‘four hundred years’ relates to ‘sojourn’, not to the being in bondage, which would be for only part of that time. But both would be with a future hope.

ELLICOTT, "(6) And that they should bring them into bondage . . .—Here again there is another apparent discrepancy of detail. Taking the common computation,

the interval between the covenant with Abraham and that with Moses was 430 years (Galatians 3:17), of which only 215 are reckoned as spent in Egypt. The Israelites were indeed sojourners in a strange land for the whole 430 years, but the history shows that they were not in bondage nor evil entreated till the Pharaoh arose who knew not Joseph. The chronological difficulty, however, lies in reconciling St. Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:17 with the language of Genesis 15:13, which gives 400 years as the sojourning in Egypt, and Exodus 12:40, which gives 430, and with which St. Stephen is in substantial agreement. St. Paul appears to have followed the LXX. reading of Exodus 12:40, which inserts “in the land of Cannan,” and in some MSS. “they and their fathers,” and with this the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees. Josephus varies, in some passages (Ant. ii. 15, § 2), giving 215 years; in others (Ant. ii. 9, § 1; Wars, v. 9, § 4), 400. All that can be said is, as before, that chronological accuracy did not affect the argument in either case. It was enough for St. Stephen, as for St. Paul, to accept this or that system of dates, as they had been taught, without inquiring into the grounds on which it rested. Such inquiries were foreign to the Jewish character generally, and above all to that character when possessed by the sense of new and divine realities. Round numbers were enough for them to mark the successive stages of God’s dealings with His people.

7 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.’[b]

BARES, "And the nation ... - Referring particularly to the Egyptians.

Will I judge - The word “judge,” in the Bible, often means to “execute judgment” as well as to pronounce it; that is, “to punish.” See Joh_18:31; Joh_3:17; Joh_8:50; Joh_12:47; Act_24:6; 1Co_5:13, etc. It has this meaning here. God regarded their oppressive acts as deserving His indignation, and He evinced it in the plagues with which He visited upon them, and in their overthrow at the Red Sea.

Shall serve me - Shall worship me, or be regarded as my people.

In this place - That is, in the place where God made this promise to Abraham. These words are not found in Genesis, but similar words are found in Exo_3:12, and it was a practice, in making quotations, to quote the sense only, or to connect two or more promises having relation to the same thing.

CLARKE, "Will I judge - Κρινω�εγω, I will punish, for in this sense the Greek word

is frequently taken. “When,” says Bp. Pearce, “a malefactor is brought before a judge, the judge does three things:

1. he tries or judges him;

2. he then gives his judgment or sentence; and,

3. he puts the law in execution, and punishes him.

Hence κρινω, at different times, signifies each of these things; and the sense of the word

is to be determined by the context. Here it signifies to punish, as κριµα is used for punishment, in Rom_13:2; 1Co_11:29, compared with 1Co_11:30, 1Co_11:31.” The Egyptians, to whom the Israelites were in bondage, were punished by the ten plagues, described Exodus 7:19-12:30.

GILL, "And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage,.... At the end of the four hundred years, and which was the Egyptian nation:

I will judge, said God; that is, condemn and punish them, as he did, by inflicting the ten plagues upon them:

and after that they shall come forth; out of the land of Egypt, and their hard bondage there; and which was brought about by the judgments executed upon the Egyptians:

and serve me in this place; in the land of Canaan; though these words are not to be found in Gen_15:13 what comes nearest them is in Exo_3:12. "Ye shall serve God upon this mountain"; meaning Mount Horeb, where Moses then was, and from whence the law was afterwards given.

HERY, "And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage,.... At the end of the four hundred years, and which was the Egyptian nation:

I will judge, said God; that is, condemn and punish them, as he did, by inflicting the ten plagues upon them:

and after that they shall come forth; out of the land of Egypt, and their hard bondage there; and which was brought about by the judgments executed upon the Egyptians:

and serve me in this place; in the land of Canaan; though these words are not to be found in Gen_15:13 what comes nearest them is in Exo_3:12. "Ye shall serve God upon this mountain"; meaning Mount Horeb, where Moses then was, and from whence the law was afterwards given.

JAMISO,"after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place—Here the promise to Abraham (Gen_15:16), and that to Moses (Exo_3:12), are combined; Stephen’s object being merely to give a rapid summary of the leading facts.

CALVI, "7.The nation whom they shall serve. This judgment is joined with the deliverance of the people. For, whereas God doth punish the cruelty and tyranny of the wicked Egyptians, he doth that for his people’s sake, whom he took into his tuition, that it may be seen that he is the deliverer of his Church. Therefore, so often as we are unjustly afflicted by the wicked, let us remember that God is the Judge of the world, who will let no injuries be unpunished. Let every man thus think with himself, Seeing that I am under the tuition of God, who is the Judge of the world, and to whom it belongeth to punish all injuries, those shall not escape his hand who trouble me now. There is the like place in Deuteronomy 32:43, where God saith that vengeance is his. Whence Paul gathereth that we must give place to wrath, (Romans 12:19;) as if he should say, that this ought to serve to reform impatience, and to bridle our evil affections, in that God promiseth that he will revenge; for he which revengeth himself doth take God’s office from him. And let us still remember that which I have already said, that God is touched with an especial care to revenge injuries done to his children, as it is in the Psalm, “Hurt not mine anointed, and be not troublesome to my prophets.”

They shall come thence and serve me. Therefore their deliverance went before the temple and the worship of the law; whereupon it followeth, that the grace of God was not tied to ceremonies. evertheless, Stephen noteth the end of their deliverance, that God chose both a peculiar people and a peculiar place for the true worship of his name. Whence we gather again, that we must regard what he commandeth and alloweth. Other nations also were determined to worship God; but because their rites were corrupt and bastardly, (384) God doth separate the Jews from the rest, and assigneth them a place where he will have them to worship him sincerely and duly as they ought. This place teacheth us, that God’s benefits must be referred to this end, that men might be brought to addict and give over themselves wholly to him. ow, since that God hath dispersed the treasures of his grace throughout the whole world, we must endeavor to sanctify him, by worshipping him purely and holily, in what country soever we dwell.

COSTABLE, "God promised to punish the nations that oppressed Israel (Genesis 12:3) and to bring her back into the land ("this place") eventually (Genesis 15:13). God had told Moses that he would bring the Israelites out of Egypt and that they would worship Him at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 3:12). Stephen's point was that God had promised to punish those who oppressed His people. The Jews had been oppressing the Christians by prohibiting their preaching and even flogging them (Acts 4:18; Acts 5:40). Gamaliel had warned that if the Christians were correct the Jewish leaders would be fighting against God by opposing them (Acts 5:39). God's promise to judge His people's oppressors went back into the Abrahamic Covenant, which the Jews treasured and Stephen reminded them of here.

PETT, "‘And the nation to which they will be in bondage I will judge, said God, and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.’

And eventually God would act. God would judge those who held them in bondage, after which, God said, “they will come out and serve Me ‘in this place’.” In Exodus 3:12 ‘in this place’ signified the mountain of God, and as Stephen has put the words on God’s lips it is probable that he intends the original context to stand. This is thus the first instance where he stresses that ordained worship of God is to be away from the land in a place chosen by God (note how he later stresses ‘the wilderness Tabernacle’).

The assumption here is that God will eventually raise up a ‘judge’ (‘I will judge’) and a deliverer, and it is thus no accident that when Moses appears to present himself to the people he does so as ruler and ‘judge’ (compare ‘and a judge’ in Acts 7:27).

This all makes clear that the land was to be a reward in the future, while future worship was not tied to the land. The land was thus not an essential foundation of their religious life. It was to be seen as the blessing to come.

ELLICOTT, "(7) And after that shall they come forth.—The verse combines the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:17 with a free rendering of the sign given to Moses (Exodus 3:12), which referred not to Canaan but to Horeb. What St. Stephen does is to substitute with the natural freedom of a narrative given from memory the words “they shall serve me” for the simpler phrase, “they shall come hither again,” of Genesis. The whole context is at variance with the assumption that St. Stephen meant the last words of the verse to be taken as applying to the mount of God.

8 Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs.

BARES, "And he gave him - That is, God appointed or commanded this, Gen_17:9-13.

The covenant - The word “covenant” denotes properly “a compact or agreement between two or more persons,” usually attended with seals, pledges, or sanctions. In Gen_17:7, and elsewhere, it is said that God would establish his “covenant” with Abraham; that is, he made him certain definite promises, attended with pledges and seals, etc. The idea of a strict “compact” or “agreement” between God and man, as between “equal parties”; is not found in the Bible. The word is commonly used, as here, to denote “a promise on the part of God,” attended with pledges, and demanding, on the part of man, in order to avail himself of its benefits, a specified course of conduct. The “covenant” is therefore another name for denoting two things on the part of God:

(1) A “command,” which man is not at liberty to reject, as he would be if it were a literal covenant; and,

(2) A “promise,” which is to be fulfilled only on the condition of obedience. The covenant with Abraham was simply a “promise” to give him the land, and to make him a great nation, etc. It was never proposed to Abraham with the supposition that he was at liberty to reject it, or to refuse to comply with its conditions. Circumcision was appointed as the mark or indication that Abraham and those thus designated were the persons included in the gracious purpose and promise. It served to separate them as a special people; a people whose unique characteristic it was that they obeyed and served the God who had made the promise to Abraham. The phrase “covenant of circumcision” means, therefore, the covenant or promise which God made to Abraham, of which circumcision was the distinguishing “mark” or “sign.”

The twelve patriarchs - The word “patriarch” properly denotes “the father and ruler of a family.” But it is commonly applied, by way of eminence, to “the progenitors” of the Jewish race, particularly to “the twelve sons of Jacob.” See the notes on Act_2:29.

CLARKE, "He gave him the covenant of circumcision - That is, he instituted the rite of circumcision, as a sign of that covenant which he had made with him and his posterity. See Gen_17:10, etc.

And so Abraham begat Isaac - Και�ο$τως, And thus, in this covenant, he begat Isaac; and as a proof that he was born under this covenant, was a true son of Abraham and inheritor of the promises, he circumcised him the eighth day; and this rite being observed in the family of Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons were born under the covenant; and thus their descendants, the twelve tribes, being born under the same covenant, and practising the same rite, were, by the ordinance of Gods legal inheritors of the promised land, and all the secular and spiritual advantages connected with it.

GILL, "And he gave him the covenant of circumcision,.... Or the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign or token, Gen_17:11. Stephen speaks here in the language of the Jews, who are wont to speak of circumcision after this manner; hence in the

Jewish liturgy, there is a collect, מילה�לברית, "for the covenant of circumcision" (h); and

so it is said (i),

"when Joseph died, they made void the "covenant of circumcision":''

and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; according to the express command in Gen_17:12

and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs; the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel.

HERY, "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.

JAMISO,"the covenant of circumcision— that is, the covenant of which circumcision was the token.

and so— that is, according to the terms of this covenant, on which Paul reasons (Gal_3:1-26).

the twelve patriarchs— so called as the founders of the twelve tribes of Israel.

CALVI, "8.He gave him the covenant. When as he confesseth that circumcision is the covenant of God, he cleareth himself sufficiently of that crime which was laid to his charge; but, in the mean season, he showeth that the Jews deal amiss, if they place the beginning of their salvation in the external sign. For if Abraham was called, and the land and redemption promised to his seed before such time as he was circumcised, it appeareth that the glory of the whole stock cloth not depend upon circumcision. Paul useth the same argument in the 4th chapter to the Romans, (Romans 4:11.) For, seeing that Abraham obtained righteousness, and pleased God before he was circumcised, he gathereth thence that circumcision is not the cause of righteousness. Therefore we see that Stephen frameth no vain and idle narration; because this was very much appertinent unto the cause, that the Jews might remember how God had adopted them with their fathers, and it is to be thought that Stephen did plainly express both things; that although circumcision was given by God, that it might be a sign of grace, yet was the adoption before it both in order and in time. But we have no need to dispute any longer in this place concerning the nature and force of circumcision. Only let us note this, that God doth first promise

those things to Abraham which he confirmeth afterward by circumcision, that we may know that the signs are vain and nothing worth, unless the word go before. Let us also note, that there is a profitable doctrine contained in the word covenant, to wit, that God maketh his covenant with us in the sacraments, that he may declare his love toward us; which thing, if it be true, first, they are not only works of external profession amongst men, but they gave great force inwardly before God, to confirm the faith. Secondly, they are no vain figures; because God, who is true figureth nothing there which he doth not perform.

BARCLAY, "DOW ITO EGYPT (Acts 7:8-16)

The picture of Abraham is succeeded by the picture of Joseph. The key to Joseph's life is summed up in his own saying in Genesis 50:20. At that time his brothers were afraid that, after the death of Jacob, Joseph would take vengeance on them for what they had done to him. Joseph's answer was, "As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good." Joseph was the man for whom seeming disaster turned to triumph. Sold into Egypt as a slave, wrongfully imprisoned, forgotten by the men he had helped, the day yet came when he became prime minister of Egypt. Stephen sums up the characteristics of Joseph in two words--grace and wisdom.

(i) Grace is a lovely word. At its simplest it means beauty in the physical sense; then it comes to mean that beauty of character which all men love. Its nearest English equivalent is charm. There was about Joseph that charm which is always on the really good man. It would have been extremely easy for him to become embittered. But he dealt faithfully with each duty as it emerged, serving with equal devotion as slave or as prime minister.

(ii) There is no word more difficult to define than wisdom. It means so much more than mere cleverness. But the life of Joseph gives us the clue to its meaning. In essence, wisdom is the ability to see things as God sees them.

Once again the contrast is there. The Jews were lost in the contemplation of their own past and imprisoned in the mazes of their own Law. But Joseph welcomed each new task, even if it was a rebuff, and adopted God's view of life.

COKE, "Acts 7:8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision:— St. Stephen, the reader may observe, draws no inferences. If he had denied the charge laid against him, as there were two witnesses who swore against him, he had been condemned immediately. If he had owned the charge, he would likewise thereupon have fallen under immediate condemnation. If he had gone about directly to have defended the truth of what the witnesses had alleged, the Sanhedrim would not have had the patience to have heard him. As it was, he proceeded in the only possible way to be heard so long as till he had vindicated himself; that is, by laying down the premises, and leaving them to draw the proper inferences from what he said: just as our Lord, in like cases, had often spoken in parables. ow the inferences to be drawn from what was thus far said, are plainly these: 1st, That in different ages and

circumstances positive and external rites have been different; and holiness was not originally confined to one particular place; as appears plainly from the history of Abraham, and from what follows concerning Moses: 2nd, That temporal prosperity, and the favour of the multitude, are not always the lot of the people of God, as appears from the cruel treatment of righteous Abraham's more immediate descendants:3rdly, That the divine favour is not confined through all ages to the observation of any one sort of positive institutions;forAbrahamwasinthefavourof God before circumcision was instituted.

COSTABLE, "Stephen probably referred to God giving Abraham the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17) because this was the sign that God would deliver what He had promised. It was the seal of the Abrahamic Covenant. God's promise was firm. Moreover God enabled Abraham to father Isaac, whom Abraham obediently circumcised, and later Isaac gave birth to Jacob who fathered the 12 patriarchs. Thus this chapter in Israel's history ends with emphasis on God's faithfulness to His promises to Abraham. The Sanhedrin needed to reevaluate these promises in the light of how God was working in their day.

Stephen affirmed belief that the God of glory had given the Abrahamic Covenant, which contained promises of land (Acts 7:2-4), seed (Acts 7:5), and blessing (Acts 7:6-7). He had sealed this covenant with a sign, namely, circumcision (Acts 7:8). Circumcision was one of the Jewish customs that would pass away in view of the new revelation that had come through Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 6:14).

Throughout his speech Stephen made many statements that had revolutionary implications for traditional Jewish thinking of his day. He did not expound these implications, but they are clear in view of what the disciples of Jesus were preaching. As such his speech is a masterpiece of understatement, or rather non-statement. That the Sanhedrin saw these implications and rejected them becomes clear at the end of the speech when they reacted as negatively as possible.

PETT, "‘And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.’

As a seal on these promises God gave him the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17), which included his descendants (he ‘circumcised’ Isaac). Thus came first Isaac, then Jacob and then the twelve Patriarchs, all included within the covenant and the promises. Circumcision was in order to bind them into the covenant and was thus to be seen as affecting their ‘hearts’ (compare Acts 7:51).

‘Circumcised him the eighth day.’ The Jews were very proud of being ‘circumcised on the eighth day’. We can compare Paul’s similar claim for himself in Philippians 3:5. Abraham was thus immediately obedient to God in accordance with His commands. But as Stephen will later point out, in contrast to this God’s people are later revealed as ‘uncircumcised in heart’ because they were disobedient (Acts 7:51).

The first stage in God’s plan is now seen as over, and God’s people are living in trust and hope, without possession of the land, and will continue on in that condition for ‘four hundred years’. They are free from Babylon and truly circumcised and safe in the covenant love of God. All of this demonstrated Stephen’s deep faith in the God of Israel, and in His concern for His people. This would hardly have been so of someone who was blasphemous.

(Later they will be moved beyond Babylon, will be described as uncircumcised at heart, and will be shown to have rejected the covenant, seeking to other gods. It is rather they who are blasphemous)

ELLICOTT, "(8) And he gave him the covenant . . .—Here we trace an indirect reference to the charge that he had spoken “against the customs.” He does not deny the specific charge that he had said that Jesus of azareth should change them. He probably had taught that the change was about to come. He does assert (1) that the covenant of circumcision followed on the promise to Abraham, and therefore was not the ground of his election, and so lays the foundation for St. Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:17; (2) that, though part of a provisional, not of a permanent, system, it came from God’s appointment, and therefore was to be spoken of with all reverence, and so he clears himself from the charge of blasphemy.

The twelve patriarchs.—On the meaning of the word see ote on Acts 2:29. Here it is applied to the sons of Jacob, as being, each of them, the founder of a patria, or family.

9 “Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him

BARES, "Moved with envy - That is, dissatisfied with the favor which their father Jacob showed Joseph, and envious at the dreams which indicated that he was to be raised to remarkable honor above his parents and brethren, Gen_37:3-11.

Sold Joseph into Egypt - Sold him, that he might be taken to Egypt. This was done at the suggestion of “Judah,” who advised it that Joseph might not be put to death by his brethren, Gen_37:28. It is possible that Stephen, by this fact, might have designed to prepare the way for a severe rebuke of the Jews for having dealt in a similar manner with

their Messiah.

But God was with him - God protected him, and overruled all these wicked doings, so that he was raised to extraordinary honors.

CLARKE, "And the patriarchs - The twelve sons of Jacob, thus called because each was chief or head of his respective family or tribe.

Moved with envy - Ζηλωσαντες. We translate ζηλος variously: zeal or fervent

affection, whether its object be good or bad, is its general meaning; and ζηλοω signifies to be indignant, envious, etc. See the note on Act_5:17. The brethren of Joseph, hearing of his dreams, and understanding them to portend his future advancement, filled with envy, (with which no ordinary portion of malice was associated), sold Joseph into the land of Egypt, hoping by this means to prevent his future grandeur; but God, from whom the portents came, was with him, and made their envy the direct means of accomplishing the great design.

GILL, "And the patriarchs, moved with envy,.... See Gen_37:11 the sons of Jacob and brethren of Joseph were filled with envy, and enraged at him, because of the evil report of them he brought to his father; and because he had a greater share in his father's love than they had; and because of his dreams, which signified that he should have the dominion over them, and they should be obliged to yield obedience to him: wherefore they

sold Joseph into Egypt; they sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, who were going down to Egypt, and who carried him thither with them: these twenty pieces of silver, the Jews say, the ten brethren of Joseph divided among themselves; everyone took two shekels, and bought shoes for his feet; to which they apply the passage in Amo_2:6 "they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes" (k): and they suggest, that the redemption of the firstborn among the Israelites on account of the selling of Joseph; they say (l),

"because they sold the firstborn of Rachel for twenty pieces of silver, let everyone redeem his son, his firstborn, with twenty pieces of silver; says R. Phinehas, in the name of R. Levi, because they sold the firstborn of Rachel for twenty pieces of silver, and there fell to each of them a piece of coined money (the value of half a shekel), therefore let everyone pay his shekel coined.''

They also affirm (m), that the selling of Joseph was not expiated by the tribes, until they were dead, according to Isa_22:14 and that on the account of it, there was a famine in the land of Israel seven years. There seems to be some likeness between the treatment of Joseph and Jesus Christ, which Stephen may have some respect unto; as Joseph was sold by his brethren for twenty of silver, so Christ was sold by one of his disciples, that ate bread with him, for thirty pieces of silver; and as it was through envy the brethren of Joseph used him in this manner, so it was through envy that the Jews delivered Jesus Christ to Pontius Pilate, to be condemned to death: of this selling of Joseph into Egypt, Justin the historian speaks (n); his words are,

"Joseph was the youngest of his brethren, whose excellent wit his brethren fearing, secretly took him and sold him to strange merchants, by whom he was carried into Egypt.''

And then follow other things concerning him, some true and some false; Stephen here adds,

but God was with him; see Gen_39:2 he was with him, and prospered him in Potiphar's house; he was with him, and kept him from the temptations of his mistress; he was with him in prison, and supported and comforted him, and at length delivered him from it, and promoted him as follows; and caused all the evil that befell him to work for good to him and his father's

JAMISO,"the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt, but God was with him— Here Stephen gives his first example of Israel’s opposition to God’s purposes, in spite of which and by means of which those purposes were accomplished.

CALVI, "9.ow followeth the greatest wickedness of the nation of Israel, that they conspired (385) together to oppress their innocent brother, which cruelty is contrary (386) to nature. either could the Jews object that it was a private fault of a few; for the infamy reacheth unto all the people. Forasmuch as all the patriarchs, Benjamin excepted, had polluted themselves with that treachery; therefore in that Stephen vouchsafeth to give them an honorable name that redoundeth to the greater reproach of the nation. They boasted proudly of their fathers; he showeth what manner [of] persons the chief of them were; to wit, murderers of their brother, (387) so much as in them laid. For, besides that slavery was a kind of death, we know what they went about at the first and, secondly, what cruel punishments Joseph suffered, of all which his brethren were guilty. Hereby it appeareth that God was bountiful and merciful to those which were, as it were unwilling, and which did resist him. For him (who was about to be the author of health and help (388)) would they have destroyed. Wherefore they did what they could to renounce all the benefits of God. So he will declare afterward that Moses was rejected when he was offered of God to be a redeemer. Therefore, the Jews have small cause to brag of the excellency of their kindred; but this alone remaineth for them, that, being ashamed, (389) they confess that whosoever they are, they have the same through the mere mercy of God, and that they consider that the law was given to set forth the same.

God was with him. God was not so with him that he did always show forth his power in helping him. For that is no small thing which is said in the Psalm, (105:18,) “That the iron went through his soul.” Surely, it must needs be that he was in great heaviness, (390) when, being destitute of all help, he suffered reproach also together with bonds and the punishment of an ungodly and wicked man; but God useth oftentimes to be present with his in such sort, that he lieth hid for a time. And the end was an evident (391) token of his presence, which Joseph saw not at the first. Furthermore, we ought to remember this every now and then, that Joseph was not delivered because he had called upon God in the [a] temple but afar off in Egypt.

BESO, "Acts 7:9-10. And the patriarchs, moved with envy — The rest of the

twelve sons of Jacob, though their relation to such holy ancestors might have taught them a much better lesson; yet, influenced by envy at the superior regard which Jacob showed to his favourite son, most inhumanly sold Joseph — Their brother; into Egypt — Where he became a slave, and suffered a great variety of calamities; but God was with him — In the midst of them, supporting him, though he was not in this land, and rendering that country a scene of very glorious providences toward him: for by these things God was working, in a mysterious and surprising manner, for the accomplishment of the prediction before mentioned. From what Stephen relates of the story of Joseph, it was obvious for the members of the council to infer that the greatest favourites of Heaven might suffer by the envy of those who were called the Israel of God; and might be exalted by him after having been rejected by them: a thought worthy of their consideration with respect to Jesus; but prudence would not allow Stephen, in the beginning of his defence, to say expressly what they could not have borne to hear; for that they could not, appears by the manner in which they resented his application of these premises, when, he was drawing toward a conclusion. And delivered him out of all his afflictions — To which he was exposed in consequence of his integrity and piety; and gave him favour and wisdom — That is, favour on account of his distinguished wisdom; in the sight of Pharaoh, who made him governor over Egypt — Committing all things in the palace, as well as elsewhere, to his direction and management. Thus did God, in the course of his providence, wonderfully exalt this despised Joseph, whom his brethren (then the whole house of Israel) had most outrageously insulted and abused, and even sold for a slave. And thus, Stephen insinuated, hath God exalted Jesus, whom ye treated as a slave, insulted, and abused, scourged, and hanged on a tree.

COFFMA, "Jealousy against Joseph ... Stephen doubtless cited this as an example of the Jews' rejection of their heaven-sent deliverer, prefiguring the rejection of the Christ himself; also, by his mention of Joseph's being made known to the brethren at "the second time," there is a hint that the Jews will really learn who Christ is at the Second Advent.

COKE, "Acts 7:9. Moved with envy, sold Joseph— The plain inference to be drawn from hence was, that they might learn from this example, to abate their hard thoughts of Jesus of azareth, whom they, in like manner, through envy, delivered into the hands of strangers, who dealt cruelly with him. Further, from the treatment which Joseph met with, they might see how holy and good persons may be treated in a cruel and unjust manner by men, and at the same time be highly in the favour of God: and therefore, in the present case, it behoved them to examine carefully, and to judge with candour: and hence too they might learn, that holiness and acceptance with God are not confined to any one particular country. For God shewed favour to Joseph in Egypt, amongst an idolatrous and wicked people.

COSTABLE 9-10, "The patriarchs, Joseph's brothers, became jealous of him (Genesis 37:11) and sold him as a slave into Egypt (Genesis 37:28). One of Jesus' 12 disciples was responsible for selling Him even as one of Joseph's 11 brothers had

been responsible for selling him. evertheless God was with Joseph (Genesis 39:2; Genesis 39:21) and rescued him from prison, gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh (lit. great house), and made him ruler over Egypt (Genesis 41:41) and his father's family. God was with Joseph, even though his brothers rejected him, because he was one of God's chosen people and because he followed God faithfully. This is what the Christians were claiming to be and do.

"The treatment of Joseph by his Hebrew brothers should have been a pointed reminder of the way Jesus had been dealt with by the Jewish nation." [ote: Kent, pp. 67-68.]Like Joseph, Jesus' brethren rejected and literally sold Him for the price of a slave. evertheless God was with Joseph and Jesus (Acts 7:9). God exalted Joseph under Pharaoh and placed Him in authority over his domain. God had done the same with Jesus.God's faithfulness to His people 7:9-16

Stephen next proceeded to show what God had done with Joseph and his family. He apparently selected this segment of the patriarchal narrative primarily for two reasons. First, it shows how God miraculously preserved His people in faithfulness to His promises. Second, it shows the remarkable similarity between the career of Joseph, a savior God raised up, and that of Jesus. Jesus repeated many of Joseph's experiences illustrating God's choice of Him. Also the Israelites in the present were similar to Joseph's brothers in the past. Stephen's emphasis continued to be on God's faithfulness to His promises even though Joseph's brothers were wicked and the chosen family was out of the Promised Land. Stephen mentioned Jesus explicitly only once in his entire speech, in his very last sentence (Acts 7:52). evertheless he referred to Him indirectly many times by drawing parallels between the experiences of Joseph and Moses and those of Jesus.

PETT, "‘And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him into Egypt. And God was with him,’

But now came the first sign of unbelief and disquiet that would become a hallmark of the people of Israel. The patriarchs, (the rulers of their tribes), became jealous of their brother and moved against him. The revelation that he was to be the one to whom they should look as their deliverer, conveyed through his dreams (they would all bow down to him), filled them with jealous rage, and they sold him off to Egypt. They wanted no prophet or ruler over them. It was the beginning of a pattern, that would continue on through the ages. God’s deliverers and prophets would regularly become the victims of the jealousies of the rulers of Israel.

We must see it as very probable that the most discerning of his audience were already beginning to get his drift. They knew that Stephen was one of this new sect, and that this new sect sought to put the blame for the death of Jesus on the leaders of the people (Acts 5:28). Thus they would make the connection between the jealousy of the patriarchs and the plot against Joseph, and their own attitude

towards Jesus as seen by His followers.

‘And God was with him.’ The one whom the people rejected turned out to be the one who was the favoured of God.

ELLICOTT, "(9) The patriarchs, moved with envy.—This, interpreted by what follows, is the first step in the long induction which is to show that the elect of God had always been opposed and rejected by those who were for the time the representatives of the nation. Envy had actuated the patriarchs when they sold Joseph; envy had led their descendants to deliver up Jesus (Matthew 27:18). But man’s evil will had not frustrated God’s gracious purpose. Joseph was made ruler over a kingdom. A greater glory might therefore be in store for Him who had now been rejected by them.

Sold Joseph into Egypt.—The objection that Joseph’s brethren sold him not into Egypt, but to the Midianites and Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:25; Genesis 37:28), may well be dismissed as frivolous. They knew the trade which the Midianite slave-dealers carried on, and where their brother would be taken. So Joseph himself says of them “ye sold me hither” (Genesis 45:5).

10 and rescued him from all his troubles. He gave Joseph wisdom and enabled him to gain the goodwill of Pharaoh king of Egypt. So Pharaoh made him ruler over Egypt and all his palace.

BARES, "And delivered him ... - That is, restored him to liberty from his servitude and humiliation, and raised him up to high honors and offices in Egypt.

Favour and wisdom - The favor was the result of his wisdom. His wisdom was particularly evinced in interpreting the dreams of Pharaoh, Gen. 41.

And he made him governor ... - Gen_41:40.

All his house - All the family, or all the court and government of the nation.

CLARKE, "Gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh - God gave him much wisdom, in consequence of which he had favor with the king of Egypt. See the whole of this remarkable history explained at large, Genesis 41:1-45:28 (note).

GILL, "And delivered him out of all his afflictions,.... From the evil designs of his mistress, and from all the miseries of a prison:

and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; so Justin in the place above cited says, that Joseph was very dear to the king; but not through his knowledge of magic arts, as he suggests, but on account of the wisdom which God gave him; for when he is said to have favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, the meaning is, that he was highly esteemed of by him, because of the wisdom he saw in him; and both the favour he had with him, and the wisdom he had in himself, were from the Lord; and in a very humble and modest manner does he speak of himself, in Gen_41:16 which Onkelos the Targumist paraphrases thus:

""not from my wisdom", but from the Lord, shall the peace of Pharaoh be answered;''

the name of this Pharaoh was Misphragmuthosis; by the Jews he is called Rian ben Walid (o):

and he made him governor over Egypt: a deputy governor under him; for Pharaoh kept the throne, and in it was greater than Joseph, and had the other ensigns of royalty, and Joseph rode in the second chariot to him:

and all his house; see Gen_41:40 as he had the affairs of the kingdom committed to him, so likewise the domestic affairs of Pharaoh, he was steward of his household.

CALVI, "10.Stephen addeth the means, because God gave him favor in the sight of Pharaoh. God could have delivered him by some other means, but his counsel had respect unto a farther thing, that Joseph, being ruler of the kingdom, might entertain his father and all his family. In these two words, favor and wisdom, there is the figure hypalloge. For the wisdom wherewith Joseph was endued was the cause that he found favor; although I confess that they were two distinct benefits. For, though Joseph were a faithful interpreter of dreams, and did excel in divine wisdom, yet the proud tyrant would never have brought him to so great honor, unless God had bent the mind of Pharaoh unto a certain unwonted love; yet, notwithstanding, we must consider that order whereby God useth to bring him into favor. (392) Wisdom doth not only signify the gift of prophecy in interpreting dreams, but prudence in giving counsel; for Moses putteth in both. That which Stephen reporteth of one man in this place is extended unto all. For what aptness and readiness (393) soever is in men, it ought to be reckoned amongst the gifts of God, and that his special gifts. (394) And it is he that giveth good success as it pleaseth him, that his gifts may be profitable to that end for which it seemed good to him to give them. Therefore, although Joseph be made chief ruler of Egypt by Pharaoh, yet is he lifted up to so great honor properly by the hand of God. (395)

PETT, "‘And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and

all his house.’

Thus God delivered him from his afflictions, and exalted him, and enthroned him (the parallel could hardly be missed with the One Who had been crucified and was declared by His followers to have been enthroned, although at this stage Stephen is not trying to make it too blatant). He was delivered in such a way that the great Pharaoh himself looked on him with favour and saw him as wise. And he made him Lord over Egypt and all his house. The one rejected by Israel’s leaders was uplifted and exalted, and became the favoured of the unorthodox. (This was getting right to the heart of the charge against Stephen).

‘Favour (grace) and wisdom.’ This may be a specific reference to Joseph’s ability to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams. God showed Pharaoh that Moses was favoured by Him by giving him the ability to reveal signs and wonders before Pharaoh in interpreting dreams. Compare Acts 7:36.

11 “Then a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food.

BARES, "Now there came a dearth - A famine, Gen_41:54.

And Chanaan - Jacob was living at that time in Canaan.

Found no sustenance - No food; no means of living.

GILL, "Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt, and Canaan,.... This dearth, or famine, is said to be in all lands, Gen_41:54 though only Egypt and Canaan are mentioned here, because the history is concerned with no other. The Jewish writers (p) speak of three lands particularly, which were affected with it, Phenicia, Arabia, and Palestine; and this famine in the land of Israel, they say (q), which lasted seven years, was on account of the selling of Joseph into Egypt, as before observed. The Heathen writers make mention of this famine, particularly Justin (r), who speaking of Joseph says, that he foresaw many years before the barrenness of the fields; and all Egypt would have perished with famine, had not the king, through his advice, ordered by an edict, that corn should be laid up for many years: this was the fifth of the ten famines, the Jews say have been, or shall be in the world (s):

and great affliction; meaning the famine, which was very severe, and lasted a long

time, even seven years: want of eating is called עינוי, "affliction", by the Jews (t); by

which they mean fasting, which is a voluntary want of eating, or abstinence from it; and if that is an affliction, then much more want of food, or abstinence through necessity; compare 1Ti_5:10.

And our fathers found not sustenance; Jacob and his family could not get sufficient provision for them in the land of Canaan, where they then were, but were obliged to go to Egypt for it.

HERY, "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 timethat 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.

CALVI, "11.There came a famine. Hereby it appeareth that the deliverance of Joseph was such a benefit as was common to all the family of Jacob. For, seeing the famine drew on, (396) Joseph was sent before in due time to provide sustenance to feed the hungry; as he himself doth acknowledge the wonderful counsel of God in that point. evertheless, the free goodness of God appeareth plainly in the person of Joseph, whilst that he is appointed to nourish and feed his brethren, who had sold him, and by that means sent him far away, and thought that he was gone away quite (397) out of the world. He putteth meat in their mouths who had thrown him into a pit, and had deprived him of the air and the common breath. Finally, he nourisheth and preserveth their life who were not afraid (398) to take from him his life. In the mean season, Stephen putteth the Jews in mind of this, that the patriarchs were enforced to depart out of that land which was given them for an heritage, and that they died in another place. Therefore, forasmuch as they were sojourners in it, they are at length banished out of the same. (399)

BESO, "Acts 7:11. ow there came a dearth — According to the prediction of Joseph, when the seven preceding years of extraordinary plenty were past, which he had also predicted; over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan — A calamity which reduced the latter country to such distress, that, fruitful as it had generally been, our fathers found no sustenance — Or, not what was sufficient to support themselves and their families. But Jacob, hearing that there was corn in Egypt —

Ordered his sons to go and fetch a supply from thence; and sent our fathers first —amely, the ten without Benjamin. And at the second time — That they went, when Benjamin accompanied them; Joseph was made known to his brethren — Of which see on Genesis 44:1-15. And, as the matter was immediately made public, Joseph’s kindred — Greek, το γενος, his descent, or race, was discovered to Pharaoh, of which he had not been informed before. Then sent Joseph, and called his father —With Pharaoh’s full consent; and all his kindred — ow become numerous, amounting in the whole even to threescore and fifteen souls — So the Seventy interpreters, whom Stephen follows: one son and a grandson of Manasseh, and three children of Ephraim, being added to the seventy persons, mentioned Genesis 46:27. So Bengelius.

COSTABLE, "The Jews' forefathers suffered from a famine in the Promised Land and sent to Egypt for food (Genesis 41:54-55; Genesis 42:2; Genesis 42:5). When hard times came upon God's people, He sustained them and brought them into blessing and under the rule of Joseph. So will it be in the future with Jesus. The Jews would suffer hardship (in the destruction of Jerusalem and in the Tribulation) and then God will bring them into blessing under Jesus' rule (in the Millennium).

PETT, "‘ow there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance, and when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent forth our fathers the first time.’

Meanwhile the whole world was suffering from famine so that ‘our fathers’ (note the more personal application, referring it to the ones from whom ‘we’ come and whom ‘we’ are like) found no sustenance. And the result was that hearing of grain in Egypt Jacob sent forth ‘our fathers’ the first time. The relation of famine to spiritual dearth occurs often in the Old Testament, and to those who were used to dealing in allegories the point would hardly be missed. Those who appeared to be God’s faithful ones, who were suffering spiritual famine because they had refused to hear God’s prophet, would have to look to ‘outside’ sources for their sustenance. Their own were insufficient. God neither heard in their land, nor responded to their pleas at their altar.

But when they went forth the first time they did not recognise their deliverer for who he was. This is implied by the silence. They sought sustenance but did not recognise the source. Yet the source should have been known to them. It was in their blindness that they did not know him. Yet from him alone was there life.

It will be noted that we are here pressing home the applications. Stephen was quietly allowing them to sink in.

ELLICOTT, "(11-14) ow there came a dearth . . .—So far as we can trace the sequence of thought, there seems the suggested inference that as those who, in the history of Joseph, had persecuted him, came afterwards to be dependent on his

bounty, so it might prove to be, in the last parallel which the history of Israel presented. In the coming famine, not of bread, but of sustenance for their spiritual life, they would have to turn to Him of whom they had been, in purpose and in act, the betrayers and murderers.

12 When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our forefathers on their first visit.

BARES, "Was corn in Egypt - The word “corn” here rather denotes “wheat.” See the notes on Mat_12:1.

Our fathers - His ten sons; all his sons except Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 42: Stephen here “refers” only to the history, without entering into details. By this general reference he sufficiently showed that he believed what Moses had spoken, and did not intend to show him disrespect.

GILL, "But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt,.... Not then growing, or gathering in there, or that was of that year's produce; for the famine was strong in the land of Egypt, as well as in Canaan; but was what had been laid up, and preserved in the seven years of plenty, by the order and care of Joseph; which by some means or another, Jacob had heard of; see Gen_42:1 the Jews suggest (u), that it was by divine revelation:

he sent out our fathers first; the first time, or the first year of the famine; or he sent them first, he laid his commands on them, or they had not gone; these were the ten sons of Jacob, and brethren of Joseph, who were sent the first time, for Benjamin stayed with his father: see Gen_42:3.

13 On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about Joseph’s family.

BARES, "Joseph was made known - Gen_45:4.

Joseph’s kindred ... - His relatives; his family, Gen_45:16.

GILL, "And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren,.... That is, when the brethren of Joseph went a second time down to Egypt for corn, Joseph made himself known unto them, Gen_45:1.

And Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh; for though it was known before that he was an Hebrew, see Gen_39:17 yet it was not known of what family he was, who was his father, or his brethren, but now it was known, Gen_45:16.

COSTABLE 13-14, "On their second visit, Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, who could not believe he was their ruler, and he revealed his family's identity to Pharaoh (Genesis 45:1-4). In the future Israel will finally recognize Jesus as her Messiah (Zechariah 12:10-14). Joseph then invited Jacob and his family, who numbered 75, to move to Egypt (Genesis 45:9-10). I take it that this was the number of people invited to Egypt. Some interpreters believe 75 people entered Egypt.

"Stephen apparently cited the LXX figure which really was not an error, but computed the total differently by including five people which the Masoretic text did not." [ote: Ibid., p. 69.]"One of the most widely accepted solutions is to recognize that the Hebrew text includes Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (a total of 70), but that the Septuagint omits Jacob and Joseph but includes Joseph's seven grandchildren (mentioned in 1 Chronicles 7:14-15; 1 Chronicles 7:20-25). This is supported by the Hebrew in Genesis 46:8-26 which enumerates 66 names, omitting Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph's two sons." [ote: Toussaint, "Acts," p. 370. See also J. A. Alexander, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 226-67.]

PETT, "‘And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s race became openly made known to Pharaoh.’

But their fathers had not remained in blindness. At the second opportunity, (the opportunity that the Sanhedrin was now experiencing), the tribal leaders had had their eyes opened. Joseph was made known to his brothers. And Joseph’s race (the source from which he came) was made openly known to Pharaoh, while Israel’s eyes were opened to their deliverer and became familiar with, and reconciled with, the ‘foreign’ influences which they had previously not recognised.

The call here was for the Sanhedrin to recognise their prospective Saviour, and open themselves to His seemingly ‘foreign’ teaching.

14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all.

BARES, "All his kindred - His father and family, Gen_45:17-28; 46:1-26.

Threescore and fifteen souls - Seventy-five persons. There has been much perplexity felt in the explanation of this passage. In Gen_46:26, Exo_1:5, and Deu_10:22, it is expressly said that the number which went down to Egypt consisted of 70 persons. The question is, in what way these accounts can be reconciled? It is evident that Stephen has followed the account which is given by the Septuagint. In Gen_46:27, that version reads, “But the sons of Joseph who were with him in Egypt were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt were seventy-five souls.” This number is made out by adding these nine souls to the 66 mentioned in Gen_46:26. The difference between the Septuagint and Moses is, that the former mentions five descendants of Joseph who are not recorded by the latter. The “names” of the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh are recorded in 1Ch_7:14-21. Their names were Ashriel, Machir, Zelophehad, Peresh, sons of Manasseh; and Shuthelah, son of Ephraim. Why the Septuagint inserted these, it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us.

CLARKE, "Threescore and fifteen souls - There are several difficulties here, which it is hoped the reader will find satisfactorily removed in the note on Gen_46:20(note). It is well known that in Gen_46:27, and in Deu_10:22, their number is said to be threescore and ten; but Stephen quotes from the Septuagint, which adds five persons to the account which are not in the Hebrew text, Machir, Gilead, Sutelaam, Taham, and Edem; but see the note referred to above.

GILL, "Then sent Joseph,.... Gifts and presents to his father, and wagons, to fetch down him and his family into Egypt, Gen_45:21.

and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls; which seems to disagree with the account of Moses, who says, that "all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten", Gen_46:27. But there is no contradiction; Moses and Stephen are speaking of different things; Moses speaks of the seed of Jacob, which came out of his loins, who came into Egypt, and so excludes his sons' wives; Stephen speaks of Jacob and all his kindred, among whom his sons' wives must be reckoned, whom Joseph called to him: according to Moses's account, the persons that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, and so exclusive of his sons' wives, were threescore and six; to which if we add Jacob himself, and Joseph who was before in Egypt, and who might be truly said to come into it, and his two sons that were born there, who came thither in his loins, as

others in the account may be said to do, who were not yet born, when Jacob went down, the total number is threescore and ten, Gen_46:26 out of which take the six following persons, Jacob, who was called by Joseph into Egypt, besides the threescore and fifteen souls, and Joseph and his two sons then in Egypt, who could not be said to be called by him, and Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Pharez not yet born, and this will reduce Moses's number to sixty four; to which sixty four, if you add the eleven wives of Jacob's sons, who were certainly part of the kindred called and invited into Egypt, Gen_45:10 it will make up completely threescore and fifteen persons: or the persons called by Joseph maybe reckoned thus; his eleven brethren and sister Dinah, fifty two brother's children, to which add his brethren's eleven wives, and the amount is threescore and fifteen: so that the Jew (w) has no reason to charge Stephen with an error, as he does; nor was there any need to alter and corrupt the Septuagint version of Gen_45:27 to make it agree with Stephen's account; or to add five names in it, in Act_7:20 as Machir, Galaad, Sutalaam, Taam, and Edom, to make up the number seventy five: and it may be observed, that the number is not altered in the version of Deu_10:22 which agrees with the Hebrew for seventy persons.

JAMISO,"threescore and fifteen souls— according to the Septuagint version of Gen_46:27, which Stephen follows, including the five children and grandchildren of Joseph’s two sons.

CALVI, "14.Whereas he saith that Jacob came into Egypt with seventy-five souls, it agreeth not with the words of Moses; for Moses maketh mention of seventy only. Jerome thinketh that Luke setteth not down, word for word, those things which Stephen had spoken, or that he took this number out of the Greek translation of Moses, (Genesis 46:27,) either because he himself, being a proselyte, had not the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, or because he would grant the Gentiles this, who used to read it thus. (400) Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the Greek interpreters set down this number of set purpose, or whether it crop [crept] in afterward through negligence, [mistake;] which (I mean the latter) might well be, forasmuch as the Grecians used to set down their numbers in letters. Augustine, in his 26th book of City of God, [De Civitate Dei,] thinketh that Joseph’s nephews and kinsmen (401) are comprehended in this number; and so he thinketh that the words went down doth signify all that time which Jacob lived. But that conjecture can by no means be received. For, in the mean space, the other patriarchs also had many children born to them. This seemeth to me a thing like to be true, that the Seventy Interpreters did translate that truly which was in Moses. And we cannot say that they were deceived; forasmuch as [in] Deuteronomy 10:0, where this number is repeated, they agree with Moses, at least as that place was read without all doubt in the time of Jerome; for those copies which are printed at this day have it otherwise. Therefore, I think that this difference came through the error of the writers which wrote out the books. (402) And it was a matter of no such weight, for which Luke ought to have troubled the Gentiles which were accustomed with the Greek reading. And it may be that he himself did put down the true number; and that some man did correct the same amiss out of that place of Moses. For we know that those which had the ew Testament in hand were ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, yet skillful in (403) the Greek,

Therefore, to the end [that] the words of Stephen might agree with the place of Moses, it is to be thought that that false number which was found in the Greek translation of Genesis was by them put in also in this place; concerning which, if any man contend more stubbornly, let us suffer him to be wise without measure. Let us remember that it is not without cause that Paul doth forbid us to be too curious about genealogies. This, so small a number, is purposely expressed, to the end the power of God may the more plainly appear, in so great an enlarging of that kindred, which was of no long continuance. For such a small handful of men could not, by any human manner of engendering, grow to such an infinite multitude as is recorded in Exodus 12:37, within two hundred and fifty years. We ought rather to weigh the miracle which the Spirit commendeth unto us in this place, than to stand long about one letter, whereby the number is altered. There arise other questions (and those which are more hard to be answered) out of the rest of the text, [context.]

COFFMA, "Threescore and fifteen souls ... This number has been seized upon as a contradiction of Genesis 46:27 which gives the number as "threescore and ten." But as George DeHoff observed:

Jacob's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). Adding Jacob himself and Joseph with his two sons, we have seventy. If to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob's sons (Judah's and Simeon's wives were dead; and Joseph could hardly be said to call himself, his own wife or his two sons into Egypt, and Jacob is specifically separated by Stephen) we have seventy-five persons as in Acts.[9]Jewish genealogies did not regard women, or even count them; and such an attitude was noted during Jesus' public ministry, and for some time within the church itself, when, for example, the number partaking of the loaves and fishes was given as "five thousand men, besides the women and children," and when the number of disciples was stated as "five thousand men" (Acts 4:4). It was appropriate that in this inspired speech of Stephen the women should have been reckoned among the number going down into Egypt with Jacob. Thus there is logic in Stephen's following a different system of numbering; and another pseudocon bites the dust.

Tomb that Abraham bought ... This is said to contradict Joshua 24:32, where it is stated that "Jacob bought (a field) of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem." However, as DeHoff pointed out, there were three separate transactions.

(1) Abraham bought a cave and field in which it stood (Genesis 23:17). (2) Abraham bought another sepulchre, but it is not stated that he bought the field in which it stood (Acts 7:15,16). (3) Years later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground (Joshua 24:32) or a parcel of a field (Genesis 33:19). This was, in all probability, the very field in which Abraham's second sepulchre stood, as this field once belonged to the same owners though they may have been miles apart.In all the Bible nothing can be found to contradict any of these statements; and it is amazing to me that even some Christians make labored efforts to "harmonize these

difficulties." I always ask, "What difficulties?"[10]SIZE>

(ii)

[9] George DeHoff, Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, p. 275.

[10] Ibid., p. 232.

PETT, "‘And Joseph sent, and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.’

The result was that those selected of the people of Jacob responded to the call of their Deliverer, and all was well. And the number of them was threescore (three times twice ten - completeness intensified) and fifteen (three times five, complete covenant connection). These were God’s elect. In the words of Acts 13:48, ‘as many as were ordained to eternal life believed’.

The number is as given in Genesis 46:27 LXX and not as in the Massoretic Hebrew text, which gives ‘seventy’. But both numbers were what they would call explanatory and we would call ‘artificial’. They were deliberately obtained in the narrative because of the significance of the numbers which indicated the ‘divine perfection’ of those involved, by simply selecting sufficient names to make up that number (LXX adds extra sons of Joseph who may have died in infancy). Both are therefore saying the same thing, and neither was intended to be an accurate count. Indeed the seventy five matches better with Abraham’s entrance into Canaan (Genesis 12:4). In fact, of course, the people who went into Egypt, including wives, children and servants would have far exceeded that number. It was never a number intended to be taken literally. It was heavy with symbolism.

ELLICOTT, "(14) Threescore and fifteen souls.—Seventy is given as the number, including Jacob, Joseph, and his sons, in Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22. Here, however, Stephen had the authority of the LXX. of Genesis 46:27, which gives the number at seventy-five, and makes it up by inserting the son and grandson of Manasseh, two sons and a grandson of Ephraim. With them it was probably an editorial correction based upon umbers 26:26-37. Stephen, as a Hellenistic Jew, naturally accepted, without caring to investigate, the number which he found in the Greek version.

15 Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and

our ancestors died.

BARES, "And died - Gen_49:33.

He and our fathers - The time which the Israelites remained in Egypt was 215 years, so that all the sons of Jacob were deceased before the Jews went out to go to the land of Canaan.

And were carried over - Jacob himself was buried in the field of Macpelah by Joseph and his brethren, Gen. 1, 13. It is expressly said that the bones of Joseph were carried by the Israelites when they went into the land of Canaan, and buried in Shechem, Jos_24:32; compare Gen_50:25. No mention is made in the Old Testament of their carrying the bones of any of the other patriarchs, but the thing is highly probable in itself. If the descendants of Joseph carried his bones, it would naturally occur to them to take also the bones of each of the patriarchs, and give them an honorable sepulchre together in the land of promise. Josephus (Antiq., book 2, chapter 8, section 2) says that “the posterity and sons of these men (of the brethren of Joseph), after some time, carried their bodies and buried them in Hebron; but as to the bones of Joseph, they carried them into the land of Canaan afterward, when the Hebrews went out of Egypt.” This is in accordance with the common opinion of the Jewish writers, that they were buried in Hebron. Yet the tradition is not uniform. Some of the Jews affirm that they were buried in Sychem (Kuinoel). As the Scriptures do not anywhere deny that the patriarchs were buried in Sychem, it cannot be proved that Stephen was in error. There is one circumstance of strong probability to show that he was correct. At the time when this defense was delivered, “Sychem” was in the hands of the Samaritans, between whom and the Jews there was a violent hostility. Of course, the Jews would not be willing to concede that the Samaritans had the bones of their ancestors, and hence, perhaps the opinion had been maintained that they were buried in Hebron.

Into Sychem - This was a town or village near to Samaria. It was called Sichar (see the notes on Joh_4:5), “Shechem,” and “Sychem.” It is now called “Naplous” or “Napolose,” and is ten miles from Shiloh, and about forty from Jerusalem, toward the north.

That Abraham bought - The word “Abraham” here has given rise to considerable perplexity, and it is now pretty generally conceded that it is a mistake. It is certain, from Gen_33:19 and Jos_24:32, that this piece of land was bought, not by Abraham, but by “Jacob,” of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. The land which “Abraham” purchased was the cave of Macpelah, of the sons of Heth, in Hebron, Gen. 23. Various solutions have been proposed of this difficulty, which it is not necessary to detail. It may be remarked, however:

(1) That as the text now stands, it is an evident error. This is clear from the passages cited from the Old Testament above.

(2) It is not at all probable that either Stephen or Luke would have committed such an error. Every consideration must lead us to the conclusion that they were too well acquainted with such prominent points of the Jewish history to commit an error like this.

(3) The “probability,” therefore, is, that the error has arisen since; but how, is not known, nor is there any way of ascertaining. All the ancient versions agree in reading “Abraham.” Only one manuscript reads “Abraham our father.” Some have

supposed, therefore, that it was written “which our father bought,” and that some early transcriber inserted the name of Abraham. Others, that the name was omitted entirely by Stephen; and then the antecedent to the verb “bought” will be “Jacob,” in verse 15, according with the fact. Other modes have been proposed also, but none are entirely satisfactory. If there was positive proof of Stephen’s inspiration, or if it were necessary to make that out, the difficulty would be much greater. But it has already been remarked that there is no decisive evidence of that, and it is not necessary to make out that point to defend the Scriptures. All that can be demanded of the historian is, that he should give a fair account of the defense as it was delivered; and though the probability is that Stephen would not commit Such an error, yet, admitting that he did, it by no means proves that “Luke” was not inspired, or that Luke has committed any error in recording “what was actually said.”

Of the sons of Emmor - In the Hebrew Gen_33:19, “the children of Hamor” - but different ways of rendering the same word.

GILL, "So Jacob went down into Egypt,.... At the invitation of his son Joseph:

and died, he, and our fathers; both Jacob and his twelve sons died in Egypt, though we have no account of the death of any of them, but Jacob and Joseph, particularly; only in general, that Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation, Gen_49:33Exo_1:6 the Syriac version adds "there", that is, in Egypt.

HERY, "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.

COSTABLE, "The number of people who made the trip and entered Egypt was probably 70 (Genesis 46:26-27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22). Jacob died safe and blessed under Joseph's rule. So will Israel end its days under Jesus' rule in the Millennium. Jacob died in Egypt as did his sons and their immediate descendants. Thus Acts 7:11-15 record a threat to the chosen people and God's preservation of them, a second testimony to God's faithfulness in this pericope (cf. Acts 7:9-10).

PETT, "‘And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, himself and our fathers;

and they were carried over to Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem.’

So Joseph in Egypt was the source of their deliverance. And the final result of their deliverance was that they were buried in the land that God had promised them, in the tomb of their tribe. To those who had become obedient God fulfilled His promise.

Here we have another telescoped statement, presumably based on Jewish tradition with which his hearers would have had no quarrel. ‘Abraham bought’ is on the basis that Jacob who did buy it (Joshua 24:32) could be seen as in the loins of Abraham (compare how in Genesis 25:23 whole nations are seen as in Rebekah’s womb). We in our more pedantic way would say ‘the Abrahamic tribe, to whom the promises were made, bought’. It was important that it was connected with Abraham here, because it was to Abraham that the promises had been made (Acts 7:5).

ote that it is stated that ‘they’ (our fathers) were carried there and laid in the tomb. We may assume from this that there was a Jewish tradition that most of the patriarchs were finally buried there (there were certainly Jewish traditions of the patriarchs being buried in Canaan), although the only information that we have from the Scriptures is of Joseph as being buried there (Joshua 24:32). Jacob was in fact buried with Abraham in Hebron (Genesis 50:13). It is therefore the other sons that are in question. But the important thing that Stephen was wanting to emphasise as concisely as possible was that the patriarchs had been finally buried in the land promised to Abraham. He simply selected a well known example in order to bring out the point.

Alternately Stephen may have seen Joseph’s body as representing all their fathers, so that they were buried there in him symbolically. But if Joseph had made arrangements for his bones to be carried back to Canaan it is quite possible, even probable, that the others had as well, with the bones of Joseph getting special prominence because of his importance.

Some have seen the connection with Shechem, which in Stephen’s time was connected with the Samaritans, as another indication of the ‘foreign’ element so prominent in Stephen’s speech, with the thought that even Jacob’s sons were buried in a place despised by the present generation rather than in what they would see as the land proper.

‘Jacob went down into Egypt.’ From Acts 7:9 onwards Stephen constantly mentions Egypt (thirteen times). He is thus stressing that until the time of Moses and for a large part of his life, Egypt was their focus and their environment.

16 Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.

CLARKE, "And were carried over to Sychem - “It is said, Gen_50:13, that Jacob was buried in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre. And in Jos_24:32, and Exo_13:19, it is said that the bones of Joseph were carried out of Egypt by the Israelites, and buried in Shechem, which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem. As for the eleven brethren of Joseph, we are told by Josephus, Ant. lib. ii. cap. 8. sect. 2, that they were buried in Hebron, where their father had been buried. But, since the books of the Old Testament say nothing about this, the authority of Stephen (or of Luke here) for their being buried in Sychem is at least as good as that of Josephus for their being buried in Hebron.” - Bp. Pearce.

We have the uniform consent of the Jewish writers that all the patriarchs were brought out of Egypt, and buried in Canaan, but none, except Stephen, mentions their being buried in Sychem. As Sychem belonged to the Samaritans, probably the Jews thought it too great an honor for that people to possess the bones of the patriarchs; and therefore have carefully avoided making any mention of it. This is Dr. Lightfoot’s conjecture; and it is as probable as any other.

That Abraham bought for a sum of money - Two accounts seem here to be confounded:

1. The purchase made by Abraham of the cave and field of Ephron, which was in the field of Machpelah: this purchase was made from the children of Heth, Gen_23:3, Gen_23:10, Gen_23:17.

2. The purchase made by Jacob, from the sons of Hamor or Emmor, of a sepulchre in which the bones of Joseph were laid: this was in Sychem or Shechem, Gen_33:19; Jos_24:32.

The word Abraham, therefore, in this place, is certainly a mistake; and the word Jacob, which some have supplied, is doubtless more proper. Bp. Pearce supposes that

Luke originally wrote, +�ωνησατο�τιµης�αργυριου, which he bought for a sum of money: i.e.

which Jacob bought, who is the last person, of the singular number, spoken of in the

preceding verse. Those who saw that the word ωνησατο, bought, had no nominative case

joined to it, and did not know where to find the proper one, seem to have inserted

Αβρααµ, Abraham, in the text, for that purpose, without sufficiently attending to the

different circumstances of his purchase from that of Jacob’s.

GILL, "And were carried over into Sichem,.... The Syriac version reads in the singular number, "and he was translated into Sichem, and laid", &c. as if this was said of Jacob only, whereas he is not spoken of at all, only the fathers, the twelve patriarchs; for Jacob, though he was carried out of Egypt, he was not buried in Sichem, but in the cave of Machpelah, Gen_50:13. But Joseph and the rest of the patriarchs, who died in Egypt, when the children of Israel came out from thence, they brought their bones along with them, and buried them in Sichem: of the burial of Joseph there, there is no doubt, since it is expressly affirmed in Jos_24:32 and that the rest of the patriarchs were buried there, and not in Hebron, as Josephus asserts (x), may be concluded from hence; because in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, there are never mentioned more in Jewish writers (y), than these four couple; Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah; from whence, they say, Hebron was called Kirjath Arba, the city of four; as also, because it is the general consent of the Jews; and if they had not agreed in it, or said nothing about it, the thing is natural to suppose, that the children of Israel brought the bones of all the patriarchs out of Egypt, along with Joseph's (z); and since they buried the bones of Joseph in Sichem, it is most reasonable to believe, that the rest were buried there likewise; though it must be owned, that there is an entire silence about them, even when the sepulchre of Joseph is taken notice of: so R. Benjamin speaking of the Samaritans says (a),

"among them is the sepulchre of Joseph the righteous, the son of Jacob our father, on whom be peace, as it is said, Jos_24:32.''

And says another of their writers (b),

"from Sichem about a sabbath day's journey, in a village, called Belata, there Joseph the just was buried;''

but of the rest, no mention is made:

and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem; the last clause, the father "of Sichem", is left out in the Syriac version; and the Alexandrian copy reads it, "in Sichem"; as if it was the name of a place, and not of a man: the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, "the son of Sichem"; whereas it is certain, that Sichem was the son of Emmor, or Hamor, Gen_33:19 unless it can be thought there were two Sichems, one that was the father of Emmor, and another that was his son: but the great difficulty is, how the sepulchre in which the fathers were laid at Sichem, can be said to be bought by Abraham of the sons of Emmor, when what Abraham bought was the field and cave of Machpelah; and that not of the sons of Emmor, but of the sons of Heth, and of Ephron, the son of Zohar the Hitrite, Gen_23:16. Whereas the parcel of ground in Sichem, bought of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem, was bought by Jacob, Gen_33:19. Various things are suggested, to reconcile this; some think the word Abraham is an interpolation, and that it should be read, which he (Jacob) bought; but to support this, no copy can be produced: others observe, that it may be read, which he bought for Abraham; that is, which Jacob bought for Abraham and his seed, as a pledge of the inheritance of the whole land, promised unto him; others think that by Abraham is meant a son of Abraham, that is, Jacob; as children are sometimes called by their father's name; as the Messiah is called David, and the like; but what best seems to remove the difficulty is, that the words refer to both places and purchases; to the field of Machpelah bought by

Abraham, and to the parcel of field is Sichem bought by Jacob, of the sons of Emmor; for the words with the repetition of the phrase, "in the sepulchre", may be read thus; "and were laid in the sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money", and in the sepulchre (bought by Jacob) "of the sons of Emmor", the father of Sichem; or the words may be rendered thus, "they were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought for a sum of money, besides" that "of the sons of Emmor", the father "of Sichem"; namely, which Jacob bought, and in which Joseph was laid, Gen_33:19. And this agrees with Stephen's account and design, in the preceding verse; he observes, that Jacob died in Egypt, and all the twelve patriarchs; and here he tells us how they were disposed of, and where they were buried, both Jacob and his sons; they were removed from Egypt, and brought into the land of Canaan; Jacob, he was laid in the cave of Machpelah, in the sepulchre Abraham bought of the children of Heth; and Joseph and his brethren, they were laid in the sepulchre at Sichem, which Jacob bought of the sons of Emmor: upon the whole, the charge of several errors brought by the (c)Jew against Stephen appears to be groundless; the sum this sepulchre was bought for was an hundred pieces of money, Gen_33:19.

HERY, "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.

CALVI, "16.Stephen saith, that the patriarchs were carried into the land of Canaan after they were dead. But Moses maketh mention only of the bones of Joseph, (Genesis 1:13.) And Joshua 24:32, it is reported, that the bones of Joseph were buried without making any mention of the rest. Some answer, that Moses speaketh of Joseph for honor’s sake, because he had given express commandment concerning his bones, which we cannot read to have been done of the rest. And, surely, when Jerome, in the pilgrimage of Paula, saith, that she came by Shechem, he saith that she saw there the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs; but in another place he maketh mention of Joseph’s grave only. And it may be that there were empty tombs (404) erected to the rest. I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses, as according to the old fame; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand. And whereas he saith afterward, they were laid in the

sepulcher which Abraham had bought of the sons of Hemor, it is manifest that there is a fault [mistake] in the word Abraham. For Abraham had bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, (Genesis 23:9,) to bury his wife Sarah in; but Joseph was buried in another place, to wit, in the field which his father Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore this place must be amended.

BESO, "Acts 7:15-16. Jacob went down into Egypt, and died — After having been supported there about seventeen years, by the filial gratitude and tenderness of his son Joseph; and our fathers — The patriarch’s children also ended their lives in the same country; and were carried over into Sychem — That is, as Jacob was immediately carried, with solemn funeral pomp and procession, to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, with Abraham and Isaac, (Genesis 50:13,) so the patriarchs also, having been embalmed, and put into coffins, in Egypt, (Genesis 50:26,) were, at the return of Israel from thence, carried over to Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre —Made in that field which Jacob bequeathed to Joseph, as a peculiar legacy; he having first, as Abraham had done in a like case, bought it for a sum of money, (that is, for one hundred pieces of silver,) of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem —From whom, in particular, the place was named; and the Amorites having afterward seized it, Jacob had by force recovered it out of their hands. See notes on Genesis 48:22; Joshua 24:32. It seems that St. Stephen, rapidly running over so many circumstances of history, had not leisure (nor was it needful, where they were so well known) to recite them all distinctly. Therefore he here contracts into one two different sepulchres, places, and purchases, so as, in the former history, to name the buyer, omitting the seller; in the latter, to name the seller, omitting the buyer. Abraham bought a burying-place of the children of Heth, Genesis 23. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Hamor. There Joseph was buried. You see here how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews: particularly when, in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the story, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer. And laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought — The first land which these strangers bought was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Shechem, and laid by the sons [that is, descendants] of Hamor, the father of Shechem, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money. So Bengelius and Wesley.

COKE, "Acts 7:16. And were carried over, &c.— It is not improbable, that the bones of the other eleven patriarchs might be carried along with the bones of Joseph, when the children of Israel went out of Egypt, Exodus 13:19 and be afterwards buried along with his bones, when Israel came into Canaan. There was the same reason for them to desire to be buried there, as there was for Joseph; that is, their firm belief, that God would in due time fulfil his promise, in giving Canaan unto Israel for a possession;

(Comp. Genesis 50:25. Hebrews 11:22.) and accordingly some of the ancient Jews affirm that the bodies of the patriarchs were carried and buried along with Joseph's; and St. Jerome asserts, that the twelve patriarchs were buried at Sychem. It seems, that St. Stephen, rapidly running over so many circumstances of history, had not leisure, nor was it needful where they were so well known, to recite them all distinctly. Therefore he here contracts into one, two different sepulchres, places and purchases, so as in the former history, to name the buyer, omitting the seller; in the latter, to name the seller, omitting the buyer. Abraham bought a burying-place of the children of Heth, Genesis 23. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Ha-mor. There Joseph was buried. We may observe here how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews; particularly when, in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the history, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer.—The first land which these strangers, these patriarchs bought, was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence, Acts 7:15-16 might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over to Shechem, and laid by the sons (that is, descendants) of Hamor the father of Shechem, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money. The reader will find much on this subject in Chais's note on Genesis 23:16. Houbigant on Genesis 33:19. Biscoe's Lectures, p. 607. Whitby, L'Enfant, Sir orton Knatchbull, &c.

COSTABLE, "From Egypt the chosen people eventually returned to the Promised Land. God had been with them out of the land, and He now returned them to the land. Believers in Jesus will end up in the final resting place of Jesus, heaven.

Shechem was of special interest to Stephen. The Israelites buried Joseph's bones there after their initial conquest of the land (Joshua 24:32). Stephen's allusion to this event was his way of concluding this period of Israel's history. Moses wrote that Jacob, not Abraham, had purchased the tomb from Hamor in Shechem (Genesis 33:19; cf. Genesis 23:16; Genesis 50:13). This is probably a case of attributing to an ancestor what one of his descendants did (cf. Hebrews 7:9-10). In the ancient ear Eastern view of things, people regarded an ancestor as in one sense participating in the actions of his descendants (Genesis 9:25; Genesis 25:23; cf. Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:11-13). Abraham had purchased Joseph's burial site in the sense that his grandson Jacob had purchased it (cf. Hebrews 7:9-10). Stephen probably intended that his reference to Abraham rather than to Jacob would remind his hearers of God's faithfulness in fulfilling the promises God gave to Abraham. He did this in one sense when Israel possessed Canaan under Joshua's leadership. Israel will experience the ultimate fulfillment of God's land promises to Abraham when she enters rest under Jesus' messianic rule in the Millennium.

Two other explanations of this apparent error are these. Stephen telescoped two events into one: Abraham's purchase from Ephron in Hebron (Genesis 23:1-20), and Jacob's purchase from Hamor in Shechem. [ote: Bruce, Commentary on . . .,

p. 149, n. 39.] Second, Abraham really did purchase the plot in Shechem, though Moses did not record that (cf. Genesis 12:6-7), and Jacob repurchased it later because the Canaanites had retaken it. [ote: J. Rawson Lumby, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 164-65. See also Wiersbe, 1:431.]

In Stephen's day Shechem was in Samaritan territory. He reminded the Sanhedrin that their ancestral deliverer was buried in the land that orthodox Jews despised and avoided. This was another instance of helping them see that they should not think that the only place God worked was in the Promised Land. Stephen had already referred to Mesopotamia as where God had revealed Himself to Abraham (Acts 7:2)

ELLICOTT, "16) And were carried over into Sychem.—The words appear to include Jacob, who was buried not at Sychem, but Machpelah (Genesis 1:13). If we limit the verb to the patriarchs, which is in itself a tenable limitation, we are met by the fresh difficulty that the Old Testament contains no record of the burial of any of the Twelve Patriarchs, with the exception of Joseph, whose bones were laid, on the occupation of Canaan, in Shechem (Joshua 24:32); and Josephus states (Ant. iv. 8, § 2) that they were buried at Hebron. This, however, only represents, at the best, a local tradition. In the time of Jerome (Ep. 86) the tombs of the Twelve Patriarchs were shown at Shechem, and this in its turn witnesses to a Samaritan tradition which continues to the present day (Palestine Exploration Report, Dec., 1877), and which Stephen, it may be, followed in preference to that of Judæa. Looking to the probabilities of the case, it was likely that the example set by Joseph would be followed by the other tribes, and that as Shechem was far more prominent than Hebron, as the centre of the civil and religious life of Israel in the time of Joshua, that should have been chosen as the burial-place of his brethren rather than Machpelah. Looking, again, to the fact that one of Stephen’s companions, immediately after his death, goes to Samaria as a preacher, and that there are good grounds for believing that both had been previously connected with it (see ote on Acts 6:5), we may probably trace to this influence his adoption of the Samaritan version of the history. The hated Sychar (Sirach 1:26; see ote on John 4:5) had, from Stephen’s point of view, a claim on the reverence of all true Israelites, and his assertion of that claim may well have been one of the causes of the bitterness with which his hearers listened to him.

That Abraham bought for a sum of money.—Here we seem to come across a direct contradiction to the narrative of Genesis. The only recorded transaction in which Abraham appears as a buyer, was his purchase of the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite (Genesis 23:16). The only recorded transaction in which the sons of Emmor, or Hamor, appear as sellers, was in Jacob’s purchase of the field at Shechem (Genesis 33:19; Joshua 24:32). What we have seen above, however, prepares us for there having been a Samaritan tradition carrying the associations of Shechem to a remoter past. And, assuming such a tradition, there are significant facts in the patriarchal history of which it furnishes an explanation. (1) Jacob gives as a special inheritance to Joseph, “one portion” (in the Hebrew, “one Shechem;” in

the LXX., Sikima) above his brethren, which he had taken “out of the hands of the Amorites with his sword and his bow.” Of that conquest—as it is clear that the words cannot refer to the massacre connected with the story of Dinah, which Jacob had severely condemned (Genesis 34:30)—the history contains no record, and to interpret the words as prophetic of future conquests is to strain them to a non-natural interpretation which they will hardly bear. Jacob did not come as an invader, nor had the time for thus taking possession of the whole land as yet arrived. The facts of the case suggest a special right claimed and asserted in regard to this one possession, and that right presupposes a previous purchase by some ancestor of Jacob’s—i.e., by Abraham. This being done and the right asserted, to make the portion larger, and perhaps as a measure of conciliation, there followed the subsequent purchase of Genesis 33:19. (2) Shechem was the earliest settlement of Abraham on his entrance into Canaan, and there he built an altar (Genesis 12:7). But the feeling of reverence for holy places, always strong in the Hebrew race, as seen, e.g., in the case of David and Araunah, would hardly permit a man of Abraham’s wealth and princely nobleness to offer burnt-offerings to the Lord of that which had cost him nothing (2 Samuel 24:24); nor would a devout worshipper be content to see the altar so consecrated in the possession of another, and so exposed to desecration. The building of an altar involved, almost of necessity, as in the case just cited, the purchase of the ground on which it stood. (3) The Samaritans had an immemorial tradition (adopted by Dean Stanley, Ffouikes, Grove, and others) that the sacrifice of Isaac took place on the mountain of Moriah (Genesis 22:2), or Gerizim, which commands the plain of Moreh (Genesis 12:6), or Shechem; and, without now discussing the evidence for or against the tradition, it almost involved of necessity the assumption that Abraham had already an altar there, and with it a consecrated field which he could call his own. (4) Another Samaritan tradition, it may be noted, connected Shechem with the sacrifice offered by Melchizedek. This is enough to show the extent of the claims which were made by the Samaritans on behalf of their sacred places, and, taken together with the statement referred to in the previous ote as to the tombs of the Patriarchs, leads us to the conclusion that Stephen, more or less influenced by his recent associations with them, adopted their traditions. This seems, at any rate, the most probable solution of the difficulty which the statement at first sight presents. To do this in Jerusalem, before the very Sanhedrin, the members of which had reviled our Lord as a Samaritan (John 8:48), required a martyr’s boldness, and, claiming as it did, a brotherhood for the hated Samaritans, the hereditary foes of Judah, had, we may believe, much to do with causing the fury that ended in his actual martyrdom. It may be added (1) that the manifest familiarity of St. Luke with Samaria and the Samaritans would dispose him to accept such a tradition without correction (see Introduction to St. Luke’s Gospel); (2) that the Twelve, some of whom had sojourned for three days at Sychar (John 4:43), were likely to have become acquainted with it, and to have been ignorant of the Hebron traditions; (3) that the well-known substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deuteronomy 27:4, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, not less than their addition of a commandment to build an altar on Gerizim to the ten great laws of Exodus 20, shows a tendency to deal freely with the text and the facts of the Pentateuch, so as to support their own traditions as to their sacred places.

Of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.—The insertion of the word “father” instead of “son,” which would be (as in Matthew 10:3; Luke 3:23) the natural rendering of the Greek construction, must be looked on as betraying a wish on the part of the translators to meet the difficulty presented by the statement in Genesis 34:2, that Shechem was the son of Hamor the Hivite. It may be noted that it is the only English version that thus tampers with the text—Tyndale giving “at Sychem;” Wiclif, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Rhemish giving “son of Sychem.” A possible explanation of the apparent discrepancy may be found in the very probable assumption that Shechem may have been a quasi-hereditary name appearing in alternate generations. In this instance, however, textual criticism comes in to cut the knot. Many of the better MSS., including the Vatican and the Sinaitic, give the reading “in Sychem,” and so make the name apply to the place and not to a person.

With the exception of Acts 7:43, we have now come to the last of the difficulties, chronological, historical, or numerical, presented by St. Stephen’s speech. They have been approached by writers of different schools of thought in ways singularly, sometimes almost painfully, characteristic. On the one hand, there has been something like the eagerness of a partisan mustering all objections and anxious to secure an adverse verdict; on the other, there has been an almost hysterical alarm and indignation that such questions should be ever raised. Here the effort has, at least, been made to deal with each on its own merits, and not to force facts this way or that to meet a foregone conclusion. Should there be errors of transcription, of report, or even of memory in the record of St. Stephen’s speech, they need not shake the faith of those who have learnt to take a higher view of inspiration than that which depends upon the registers of genealogies or chronological tables. But it may be well also not to assume too hastily that men of average culture and information would be altogether ignorant of the facts which they narrate, and the sacred writings which have been the object of their continual study. And it may be urged that the appearance of seeming inaccuracies, which a moment’s reference to the Book of Genesis would have enabled the writer to correct, is, at any rate, evidence of faithfulness in his report of the speech which he thus reproduces.

17 “As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt had greatly increased.

BARES, "The time of the promise - The time of the “fulfillment” of the promise.

The people grew ... - Exo_1:7-9.

GILL, "But when the time of the promise drew nigh,.... That is, the time of the four hundred years; when God promised to deliver the seed of Abraham out of their affliction and servitude, and bring them into the land of Canaan to inherit it:

which God had sworn to Abraham; in Gen_15:13 for though there is no express mention made of an oath, yet there is a most solemn affirmation, which is equivalent to one; the Alexandrian copy and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version read,

which God promised unto Abraham; the people grew and multiplied in Egypt; see Exo_1:7 insomuch, that though their number were but threescore and ten when they went down to Egypt, and though various methods were taken to destroy them, and lessen their numbers, yet in little more than two hundred years, their number was increased to six hundred thousand, and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men, besides old men, women, and children, and besides two and twenty thousand Levites, Num_1:46. And it seems, that they multiplied the more towards the time when the promise of deliverance drew nigh to be accomplished, and even when they were the most afflicted, Exo_1:12.

HERY, "Stephen here goes on to relate,

I. The wonderful increase of the people of Israel in Egypt; it was by a wonder of providence that in a little time they advanced from a family into a nation. 1. It was when the time of the promise drew nigh - the time when they were to be formed into a people. During the first two hundred and fifteen years after the promise made to Abraham, the children of the covenant were increased but to seventy; but in the latter two hundred and fifteen years they increased to six hundred thousand fighting men. The motion of providence is sometimes quickest when it comes nearest the centre. Let us not be discouraged at the slowness of the proceedings towards the accomplishment of God's promises; God knows how to redeem the time that seems to have been lost, and, when the year of the redeemed is at hand, can do a double work in a single day. 2. It was in Egypt, where they were oppressed, and ruled with rigour; when their lives were made so bitter to them that, one would think, they should have wished to be written childless, yet they married, in faith that God in due time would visit them; and God blessed them, who thus honoured him, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply. Suffering times have often been growing times with the church.

JAMISO,"But when— rather, “as.”

the time of the promise— that is, for its fulfillment.

the people grew and multiplied in Egypt— For more than two hundred years they amounted to no more than seventy-five souls; how prodigious, then, must have been their multiplication during the latter two centuries, when six hundred thousand men, fit for war, besides women and children, left Egypt!

CALVI, "17.Stephen passeth over unto the deliverance of the people, before which (405) went that innumerable issue which had increased beyond the ordinary manner in no long space of time. Therefore, he setteth down this as a singular gift of God,

that the people was increased, to the end we may know that that came not to pass according to the common or wonted custom of nature. But, on the other side, God seemeth to take from the Jews all hope, because Pharaoh doth tyrannously afflict them, and their bondage groweth greater daily. And when as they are commanded to cast out their male infants, it seemeth that the destruction of the whole nation was present. There is another token of deliverance given, when Moses cometh abroad; but because he is by and by refused and enforced to fly into exile, there remaineth nothing but mere despair. The sum is this; that God, being mindful of his promise, did increase the people in time, that he might perform that which he had sworn to Abraham; but the Jews (as they were unthankful and froward) did refuse the grace of God, so that they did what they could to shut up the way before themselves. Furthermore, we must note the providence of God in this place, whilst that he doth so order the course of times, that his works have always their opportunity. But men who make haste disorderly in their desires cannot hope patiently, and be at rest, until such time as God showeth forth his hand; for this cause, because they take no heed to that moderation whereof I have spoken. And to the end God may exercise the faith of his children so often as he appeareth with joyful tokens of grace, he setteth other things against those on the other side, which cut off suddenly the hope of salvation. For who would not have said of the Hebrews, that they were utterly undone, when as the king’s commandment appointed all the men children to be put to death? For which cause the meditating upon that doctrine is the most [more] necessary for us, that God doth kill and restore to life; he leadeth unto hell, and bringeth back again.

BARCLAY, "THE MA WHO EVER FORGOT HIS FELLOW-COUTRYME (Acts 7:17-36)

ext upon the scene comes the figure of Moses. For the Jew, Moses was above all the man who answered God's command to go out. He was quite literally the man who gave up a kingdom to answer God's summons to be the leader of his people. Our Bible story has little to tell us of the early days of Moses; but the Jewish historians had much more to say. According to Josephus, Moses was so beautiful a child that, when he was being carried down the street in his nurse's arms, people stopped to look at him. He was so brilliant a lad that he surpassed all others in the speed and the eagerness with which he learned. One day Pharaoh's daughter took him to her father and asked him to make him his successor on the throne of Egypt. Pharaoh agreed. Then, the tale goes on, Pharaoh took his crown and jestingly placed it on the infant Moses' head; but the child snatched it off and threw it on the ground. One of the Egyptian wise men standing by said that this was a sign that if he was not killed at once this child was destined to bring disaster on the crown of Egypt. But Pharaoh's daughter snatched Moses into her arms and persuaded her father not to heed the warning. When Moses grew up he became the greatest of Egyptian generals and led a victorious campaign in far-off Ethiopia where he married the princess of the land.

In face of that we can see what Moses gave up. He actually gave up a kingdom in

order to lead his people out into the desert on a great adventure for God. So once again Stephen is making the same point. The great man is not the man who, like the Jews, is thirled to the past and jealous of his privileges; he is the man who is ready to answer God's summons and leave the comfort and the ease he might have had.

BESO, "Acts 7:17-21. When the time of the promise drew nigh — That is, the time for the accomplishment of the promise; which God had sworn to Abraham —Concerning the multiplication of his seed; see note on Genesis 22:16-17; the people grew, &c. — Became very numerous in Egypt, notwithstanding that they were under great oppression there; till another king arose — Probably of another family; which knew not Joseph — And had no regard to his memory. The same dealt subtly with our kindred — Formed crafty and treacherous designs against them; and evil-entreated our fathers — Used them in a most injurious and barbarous way, lest in time they should become too powerful; so that — In obedience to a most inhuman order, which he published; they cast out their young children — Exposed them to perish by hunger or wild beasts; or cast them into the river ile; to the end they might not live — That they might be cut off from being a people, and their very race become quite extinct. In which afflictive and persecuting, but seasonable time —When our fathers were reduced to this miserable state; Moses was born — The person intended by God to be the instrument of his people’s deliverance; and was exceeding fair — Greek, αστειος τω θεω, fair to God, as the margin reads it. The words, being a Hebraism, are only an emphatical expression, to denote Moses’s extraordinary beauty, and might be not unfitly rendered divinely beautiful, the name of God being often introduced to express such things as were extraordinary in their kind. So in the Hebrew, what we translate great wrestlings, (Genesis 30:8,) is wrestlings of God; goodly cedars, (Psalms 80:10,) are cedars of God; great mountains, (Psalms 36:6,) are mountains of God. This then agrees with what is said of Moses, (Exodus 2:2,) that he was a goodly child; and with the account which Josephus gives of him, who says, “that when he was but three years old, his extraordinary beauty was such, that it struck every one that saw him; and as they carried him about, persons would leave their work to look at him.” See Grotius and Whitby. And when he was cast out — Was thus exposed to perish, the providence of God so ordered it, that Pharaoh’s daughter took him up — Being moved with pity at the sight of him; and nourished him — With a purpose of adopting him; for her own son — By which means, being designed for a kingdom, he had all those advantages of education, which he could not have had if he had not been exposed. “All these extraordinary circumstances, relating to the birth, preservation, education, genius, and character of Moses, serve to aggravate the crime of Israel in rejecting him, when he offered himself to them as a deliverer under so many advantages, and when Providence had so wonderfully interested itself in his favour.” — Doddridge.

COFFMA, "Just as the Patriarchs had rejected Joseph the great deliverer who had saved the nation from starvation, Stephen would now show that the chosen people had also rejected Moses, notwithstanding the fact that Moses was exceedingly well qualified to be God's instrument of deliverance from bondage.

On the whole, Stephen's eulogy of Moses fell far short of the extravagant claims usually made by the Jews with regard to the great lawgiver, some even claiming that he was the author of Egyptian civilization. The points here stressed are: (1) that Moses had been providentially incorporated into the royal family of Egypt, (2) that he was "exceeding fair," and (3) that he had been provided with the very best education possible.

Exceeding fair ... "This phrase is intensive, rather than a mere equivalent for the superlative, and means "fair unto God."[11] Coupled with the statement later that he was mighty "in words and works," these expressions reveal Moses to have been a man of the most extraordinary power and ability. Even in his early childhood, Moses possessed remarkable ability and beauty. Josephus wrote:

It happened frequently, that those who met him as he was carried along the road, were obliged to turn again upon seeing the child; they left what they were about and stood a great while to look at him; for the beauty of the child was so remarkable and natural that it detained the spectators, and made them stay longer to look upon him.[12]Although not specifically stated by Stephen in his address, it is manifest that he was here presenting Moses as a type of Jesus our Lord, a principal factor of which was his rejection by the chosen people, next related.

Mighty in words and works ... There is no reference here to any of those miraculous deeds which later marked the life of Moses; but the meaning is that his achievements in every way were superlative.

[11] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1866), p. 119.

[12] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston (ew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 77.

COSTABLE, "Stephen had gotten ahead of himself briefly in Acts 7:16. ow he returned to his history of Israel just before the Exodus. "The promise" God had made to Abraham was that He would judge his descendants' enslaving nation and free the Israelites (Genesis 15:14). This was a particular way that He would fulfill the earlier promises to give Israel the land, to multiply the Israelites, and to curse those nations that cursed Israel (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7). The Israelites increased in Egypt until another Pharaoh arose who disregarded Joseph (Exodus 1:7-8).

Similarly Christ had come in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4). Before Moses appeared on the scene, Israel increased in numbers and fell under the control of an enemy that was hostile to her. Likewise before Jesus appeared, Israel had increased numerically and had fallen under Roman domination.

PETT, "‘But as the time of the promise drew near which God had vouchsafed to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, until there arose another king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.’

As a result of God’s deliverance through Joseph, Israel prospered. ‘The people grew and multiplied’, which was always an indication of God’s blessing. But as the time for the fulfilling of God’s promise of deliverance from Egypt approached, affliction came on the people. A king arose who did not know Joseph (Exodus 1:8). God’s deliverer was now forgotten and therefore it would be necessary to await another deliverer. And before the coming of the deliverer must come the bondage. (Thus the fact that Israel was at present in bondage should have meant that they were looking for the deliverer).

Was there also here a hint to the leaders that the new people of Christ were growing and multiplying outside of and apart from the influence of the Jewish leaders, but facing a threat from those who did not know their Deliverer?

HAWKER 17-29, "But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, (18) Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. (19) The same dealt subtlety with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live. (20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months: (21) And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. (22) And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. (23) And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: (25) For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not. (26) And the next day he showed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another? (27) But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? (28) Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday? (29) Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.

The time of the promise here alluded to, doth not mean the coming of the promised seed; for this was yet far remote: but the promise, which was to take place, at the end of the four hundred years; when the Lord would deliver his people out of the afflictions of Egypt, and judge that nation (Act_7:6-7). And how exact the Lord was to his promise, the Holy Ghost hath caused it to be recorded, with peculiar marks of distinction; and enjoined the perpetual remembrance of it in his Church, Exo_12:41-42. If the Reader finds some little difficulty to reconcile the two different dates of years spoken of on this occasion; that difficulty will cease, by recollecting that the commencement of reckoning, doth not begin at the oppressions of Egypt over Israel, for those cruelties were not exercised until after the death of Joseph. And indeed, the whole sojourning of Israel in Egypt, could not have been more than two hundred and forty years, See Gen_25:26; Gen_47:9; Gen_50:26. But when, as in this Chapter, and at the promise first given,

Gen_15:13; Gen_15:16, we are to reckon four hundred years; the account of reckoning begins after the birth of Isaac. And for the thirty years the account is taken from Abraham’s first sojourning in Egypt, Gen_12:10 with Exo_12:40.

The deliverance of Israel from Egypt, beside the history as a matter of fact, and beside the personal mercy of the redemption, to the children of God then; was a sweet type of the Lord’s Israel now, and in all ages of the Church; being brought out of the Egypt of sin, by the Person, work, and glory, of the Lord Jesus Christ. In all, and every instance of the Church’s bondage, God in Covenant speaks over again the same words, as he graciously said to Abraham: The nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God. They shall come forth, and serve me! What a reviving thought to bondage souls!

If I detain the Reader for a moment in this place, it shall only be to remark, what a beautiful type of the Lord Jesus Moses was, in numberless instances, in relation to his Church and people. The Holy Ghost, by his servant Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews; Heb 3 and Heb 11, hath thrown great light upon this Scripture history, concerning Moses and the Church; and especially, in relation to his being in many points, a type as well as a servant of his Almighty Lord and Savior.

One feature, I particularly beg to notice to the Reader, concerning this man, which to me I confess is striking. Stephen saith, in his account of him that he supposed his brethren would have understood, how that God by his hand would deliver them. Now, we find no notice taken of this apprehension in the mind of Moses, in the history which we have of him at large in Exodus. Nay, on the contrary, when in the after days of Moses’ life, and when at the bush, the Lord called him to this service, we find a strong reluctancy on the part of Moses, to go upon so arduous an undertaking. It was very gracious, therefore, in God the Holy Ghost, to put it into the heart and mouth of Stephen, to tell the Church this concerning Moses; for it. opens a very interesting train of thoughts in the mind, and which under divine teaching, cannot fail of becoming highly profitable. In the relation we have of Moses’ history, Exo_2:10-11, the chasm, from Moses being brought from the time of nursing by Pharaoh’s daughter, to his being grown, is not filled in with any date; and we are left to form our own conjectures, how long it might have been from his being brought to Pharaoh’s daughter, to the time that it came into his heart to visit his brethren. But the Lord the Spirit was pleased to think it important, that the Church should know; and therefore by Stephen we are told, that he was forty years old, when this event took place. Here then evidently we behold, the first impulse breaking out in the mind of Moses under the Lord, of his relationship to Israel, and that Israel in Christ, And I pray the Reader yet further to remark, the very words which God the Holy Ghost useth, for they are striking: it came into his heart, to visit his brethren. How? I would humbly ask, but by the Spirit of the Lord. He was now in the Court of Pharaoh. An adopted son of the King’s daughter. But Moses, though all this while, for forty years, insensible as it should seem, to the afflictions of his people; yet could not but know himself by the marks of circumcision in his flesh of the seed of Abraham. These things were smothered, hid away, from the observation, or knowledge even of those in the Court of Pharaoh, who knew his origin; yea, probably Moses would have wished while unawakened by grace, to have forgotten them himself. But, when the Lord put it in his heart, he felt the full tide of Israel’s stream, in love to return; and from the same Almighty teaching drew conclusions, that the God of Abraham, which prompted him to deliver his oppressed brethren, must have taught them also! Reader! what a train of the most precious thoughts arise from hence, in proof of grace-union in Christ, and sometimes breaking out in a way perfectly undescribable, in confirmation of it, even before any open work is wrought in the soul by regeneration, as in the instance of Moses,

to make us sensible whose we are, and to whom we belong! Reader! Is it not sweet to you? It is to me indeed!

18 Then ‘a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt.’[c]

BARES, "Till another king arose - This is quoted from Exo_1:8. What was the “name” of this king is not certainly known. The “common” name of all the kings of Egypt was “Pharaoh,” as “Caesar” became the common name of the emperors of Rome after the time of Julius Caesar: thus we say, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius Caesar, etc. It has commonly been supposed to have been the celebrated Rameses, the sixth king of the eighteenth dynasty, and the event is supposed to have occurred about 1559 years before the Christian era. M. Champollion supposes that his name was Mandonei, whose reign commenced in 1585 b.c., and ended 1565 years before Christ (Essay on the Hieroglyphic System, p. 94, 95). Sir Jas. G. Wilkinson supposes that it was Amosis, or Ames, the “first” king of the eighteenth dynasty (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1, pp. 42, 2nd ed.). “The present knowledge of Egyptian history is too imperfect to enable us to determine this point” (Prof. Hackett).

Which knew not Joseph - It can hardly be supposed that he would be ignorant of the name and deeds of Joseph; and this expression, therefore, probably means that he did not favour the designs of Joseph; he did not remember the benefits which he had conferred on the nation; or furnish the patronage for the kindred of Joseph which had been secured for them by Joseph under a former reign. National ingratitude has not been uncommon in the world, and a change of dynasty has often obliterated all memory of former obligations and compacts.

CLARKE, "Which knew not Joseph - That is, did not approve of him, of his mode of governing the kingdom, nor of his people, nor of his God. See the note on Exo_1:8.

GILL, "Till another king arose,.... In, or over Egypt, as the Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read; in Exo_1:8 it is a new king; the Jewish writers are divided about him, whether he was a different king from the former; or only so called, because he made new edicts (d):

"Rab and Samuel, one says a new one absolutely: and the other says, because his decrees were renewed; he that says a new one absolutely, (thinks so) because it is written a new one; and he who says, because his decrees are renewed (or he makes new decrees, he

thinks so) from hence, because it is not written, and he died, and there reigned; and (it makes) for him that says, because his decrees are renewed, what is written, "who knew not Joseph"; what is the meaning of that, "who knew not Joseph?" that he was like one who knew not Joseph at all.''

The Septuagint version of Exo_1:8 renders it "another" king, as does Stephen here; another king from the Pharaoh of Joseph: the name of this was Ramesses Miamun; and one of the treasure cities built for him seems to be called after his name, Raamses, Exo_1:11. The Jews call him Talma (e) and by Theophilus of Antioch (f) he is called Tethmosis; and by Artapanus (g), Palmanotha: "which knew not Joseph"; nor what great things he had done, to the advantage of the Egyptian nation; he was acquainted with the history of him, and of his worthy deeds, and therefore had no regard to his people, as the other Pharaoh had Josephus (h) says, the kingdom was translated to another family; which might be the reason why he was not known, nor his friends taken notice of: Aben Ezra says, he was not of the seed royal; wherefore it is written, "and there arose"; he the kingdom, and had not a just right and title so that being a stranger, it is no wonder that he should not know Joseph; Jarchi's note is,

"he made himself as if he did not know him''

he dissembled, he pretended ignorance of him, because he would show no respect unto his people. Beza's ancient copy, and another in the Bodleian library, read, "which remembered not Joseph".

HERY, "II. The extreme hardships which they underwent there, Act_7:18, Act_7:19. When the Egyptians observed them to increase in number they increased their burdens, in which Stephen observes three things: - 1. Their base ingratitude: They were oppressed by another king that knew not Joseph, that is, did not consider the good service that Joseph had done to that nation; for, if he had, he would not have made so ill a requital to his relations and family. Those that injure good people are very ungrateful, for they are the blessings of the age and place they live in. 2. Their hellish craft and policy: They dealt subtly with our kindred. Come on, said they, let us deal wisely,thinking thereby to secure themselves, but it proved dealing foolishly, for they did but treasure up wrath by it. Those are in a great mistake who think they deal wisely for themselves when they deal deceitfully or unmercifully with their brethren. 3. Their barbarous and inhuman cruelty. That they might effectually extirpate them, they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live. The killing of their infant seed seemed a very likely way to crush an infant nation. Now Stephen seems to observe this to them, not only that they might further see how mean their beginnings were, fitly represented (perhaps with an eye to the exposing of the young children in Egypt) by the forlorn state of a helpless, out-cast infant (Eze_16:4), and how much they were indebted to God for his care of them, which they had forfeited, and made themselves unworthy of: but also that they might consider that what they were now doing against the Christian church in its infancy was as impious and unjust, and would be in the issue as fruitless and ineffectual, as that was which the Egyptians did against the Jewish church in its infancy. “You think you deal subtly in your ill treatment of us, and, in persecuting young converts, you do as they did in casting out the young children; but you will find it is to no purpose, in spite of your malice Christ's disciples will increase and multiply.”

19 He dealt treacherously with our people and oppressed our ancestors by forcing them to throw out their newborn babies so that they would die.

BARES, "II. The extreme hardships which they underwent there, Act_7:18, Act_7:19. When the Egyptians observed them to increase in number they increased their burdens, in which Stephen observes three things: - 1. Their base ingratitude: They were oppressed by another king that knew not Joseph, that is, did not consider the good service that Joseph had done to that nation; for, if he had, he would not have made so ill a requital to his relations and family. Those that injure good people are very ungrateful, for they are the blessings of the age and place they live in. 2. Their hellish craft and policy: They dealt subtly with our kindred. Come on, said they, let us deal wisely,thinking thereby to secure themselves, but it proved dealing foolishly, for they did but treasure up wrath by it. Those are in a great mistake who think they deal wisely for themselves when they deal deceitfully or unmercifully with their brethren. 3. Their barbarous and inhuman cruelty. That they might effectually extirpate them, they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live. The killing of their infant seed seemed a very likely way to crush an infant nation. Now Stephen seems to observe this to them, not only that they might further see how mean their beginnings were, fitly represented (perhaps with an eye to the exposing of the young children in Egypt) by the forlorn state of a helpless, out-cast infant (Eze_16:4), and how much they were indebted to God for his care of them, which they had forfeited, and made themselves unworthy of: but also that they might consider that what they were now doing against the Christian church in its infancy was as impious and unjust, and would be in the issue as fruitless and ineffectual, as that was which the Egyptians did against the Jewish church in its infancy. “You think you deal subtly in your ill treatment of us, and, in persecuting young converts, you do as they did in casting out the young children; but you will find it is to no purpose, in spite of your malice Christ's disciples will increase and multiply.”

CLARKE, "The same dealt subtilty - Ο$τος�κατασοφισαµενος, A word borrowed

from the Septuagint, who thus translate the Hebrew לו�נהחכמה nithchokmah�lo, let us deal wisely with it, i.e. with cunning and deceit, as the Greek word implies; and which is evidently intended by the Hebrew. See Gen_27:35, Thy brother came with subtilty,

which the Targumist explains by בחוכמא be-chokma, with wisdom, that is, cunning and

deceit. For this the Egyptians were so remarkable that αιγυπτιαζειν, to Egyptize, signified to act cunningly, and to use wicked devices. Hence the Jews compared them to foxes; and it is of them that Canticles, Son_2:15, is understood by the rabbins: Take us the little foxes which spoil our vines; destroy the Egyptians, who, having slain our male children, sought to destroy the name of Israel from the face of the earth.

To the end they might not live -Might not grow up and propagate, and thus build

up the Hebrew nation.

GILL, "The same dealt subtilly with our kindred,.... See Exo_1:10 he took crafty, and yet cruel methods, to diminish the children of Israel, and to humble them; weakening their strength by labour, that they might not be able to beget children; ordering the Hebrew midwives to kill all the males that were born; and charging all his people to drown such male children that should escape the hands of the midwives;

and evil entreated our fathers; keeping them to hard labour, in mortar and brick, and all rural service; in which he made them to serve with rigour, and thereby made their lives bitter to them; employing them in building cities, pyramids, walls, and towers; making ditches, throwing up trenches, cutting watercourses, and turning rivers, with other things; which he added, setting taskmasters over them, to afflict them with burdens:

so that they cast out their young children, or "by making their children cast outs": or as the Arabic version renders it, "by making that their children should be cast out": that is, by ordering his people to expose them to ruin, and to cast them in the rivers; and so the Syriac version, "and he commanded that their children be cast out"; for this refers to Pharaoh, and his orders to his officers and people, to cast out the male children of the Israelites; and not to the parents of the children, which our version and the Vulgate Latin incline to: for though Moses's mother, after she had hid him three months, put him into an ark of bulrushes, and laid him among the flags by the river's side, yet that was in order to save his life: whereas the end of the casting out of these young children was as follows,

to the end they might not live: for this has not respect unto the parents of the children, that they might not increase or multiply their offspring, but to the young children, that they being cast into the waters, might perish, and not live and become men; the Ethiopic version is rather a paraphrase, "and he commanded that they should kill every male that was born".

CALVI, "19.Dealt subtilely. The old interpreter did not translate this amiss, to deceive. (406) For Stephen meaneth that the king of Egypt did craftily invent new shifts and wicked pretenses, that he might every now and then lay heavier burdens upon the people, like as almost all tyrants do; for how unjustly soever they vex their subjects, they are [but] too witty to invent excuses. And it is not to be doubted but that Pharaoh abused this honest color, that it was not meet that the Jews, who were sojourners, should have a place of abode in his realm for nought, and that they should be free from all burthens, seeing they did enjoy great commodities. Therefore, he deceitfully made them vile bondslaves of free-men. When Stephen saith that this tyrant knew not Joseph, hereby it appeareth how soon the remembrance of benefits passeth away among men, For although we do all with one consent detest unthankfulness, yet is there no vice more common amongst us.

Lest they should be increased. Erasmus translateth this improperly, in my judgment. For [ Ζωογονεισθαι ] expresseth more than lest their children should live. For the word is fet [fetched] thence, because the people doth all always remain alive

in the offspring. And, furthermore Stephen doth not reckon up all the parts of their evil-entreating, but putteth down one example of extreme cruelty. Whence we may easily gather how near the whole seed of Abraham was to destruction. For Pharaoh seemed to have murdered them all with that commandment as with one stroke of a sword. But such violent barbarism did the more set forth the unlooked-for and incredible power of God; because when Pharaoh hath, by all means possible, striven against God, yet all is in vain.

PETT, "‘The same dealt craftily with our race, and ill-treated our fathers, so that they cast out their babes with the purpose that they might not live.’

The result was that affliction arose and attempts were made to slay all male babies at birth. There may be here a reminder of what had happened to the children of Bethlehem when Jesus was born at the hands of the crafty King Herod (Matthew 2:16), and also of the Roman occupation which the Jews certainly saw as an affliction (‘ill-treated our fathers’).

20 “At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child.[d] For three months he was cared for by his family.

BARES, "In which time ... - During this period of oppression. See Exo_2:2, etc.

Was exceeding fair - Greek: “was fair to God”; properly rendered, “was very handsome.” The word “God” in the Greek here in accordance with the Hebrew usage, by which anything that is “very handsome, lofty, or grand” is thus designated. Thus, Psa_36:7, “mountains of God,” mean lofty mountains; Psa_80:11, “cedars of God,” mean lofty, beautiful cedars. Thus, Nineveh is called “a great city to God” (Jon_3:3, Greek), meaning a very great city. The expression here simply means that Moses was “very fair,” or handsome. Compare Heb_11:23, where he is called “a proper child”; that is, a “handsome child.” It would seem from this that Moses was preserved by his mother on account of his “beauty”; and this is hinted at in Exo_2:2. And it would also seem from this that Pharaoh had succeeded by his oppressions in what he had attempted; and that it was not unusual for parents among the Jews to expose their children, or to put them to death.

CLARKE, "Moses - was exceeding fair - Α̣ειος�τ;�Θε;, Was fair to God, i.e. was

divinely beautiful. See the note on Exo_2:2.

GILL, "In which time Moses was born,.... The word Moses, is differently written in the New Testament; sometimes Moses, as here, sometimes Mo-yses, as in Act_7:35sometimes Mo-yseus, as in Act_15:1 and sometimes Moseus, as in Rom_5:14. He had

his name from the Hebrew word, משה, which signifies "to draw", Psa_18:16 according to

the reason of it given by Pharaoh's daughter,

she called his name Moses; and she said, because I drew him out of the water, Exo_2:10 Though Josephus (i), Philo (k), and others (l), make it to be an Egyptian name; the former of which serves, that the Egyptians call water "Mo", and "yses", such who are saved from water; wherefore compounding the name of both, they gave it to him: though according to Aben Ezra (m), his name in the Egyptian language was Monios; his words are these,

"the name of Moses is interpreted out of the Egyptian language into the Hebrew language, for his name in the Egyptian language was Monios; and so it is written in a book of agriculture, translated out of the Egyptian language into the Arabic, and also in the books of some Greek writers.''

Moses had many names, as a Jewish chronologer observes (n);

"Pharaoh's daughter called his name Moses; his father called him Chabar, or Heber; his mother called him Jekuthiel; and his sister called him Jether (perhaps Jared, since this was one of his names); and his brethren called him Abizanoah; and Kohath called him Abi Socos; and the Israelites called him Shemaiah ben Nathaneel, and sometimes Tobiah, sometimes Shemaiah, and sometimes Sopher; but the Egyptians called him Monios.''

For "Mo", in the Egyptian language, signifies "water", and "Ni" is "out"; and so both together signify, "out of the water", which agrees with the Hebrew etymology of his name. Now he was born at the time that orders were given by Pharaoh to cast all the male children of the Israelites into the rivers, to drown them; Moses was born, whose parents were Amram and Jochebed, of the tribe of Levi; he was born, according to the Jews (o), on the seventh day of Adar, or February:

and was exceeding fair; or "fair to God"; divinely fair and beautiful; and so Pharaoh's daughter, acccording to Josephus, said to her father, that she had brought up a child

that was µορφη�θειον (p) "in form divine": and so the Jews say (q), that his form was as

an angel of God; or he was fair in the sight of God, as the Ethiopic version; the Syriac version renders it, "he was dear to God"; and the Vulgate Latin version, grateful to God; was well-pleasing to him, in whom he delighted, having designed to do great things by him: or "fair by God": he had a peculiar beauty put upon him by God; partly to engage his parents the more to seek the preservation of him; and partly to engage the affection of Pharaoh's daughter to him, when she should see him. Justin the historian (r) makes mention of his extraordinary beauty, for which he was praised; but very wrongly makes him to be the son of Joseph; and the account Josephus gives of it, is very remarkable (s);

"as to beauty, says he, no man could be so out of love with it, as to see the goodly form of Moses, and not be amazed; it happened to many who met him, as he was carried along

the way, that they would turn back at the sight of the child, and neglect their business, to indulge themselves with the sight of him; for such was the loveliness of the child, that it detained those that saw him.''

The Arabic version renders it, he "was consecrated by a vow to God"; but of this we have no account: the Jews say (t), that

"the Spirit of God came upon Miriam, and she prophesied; saying, behold a son shall be born to my father and to my mother at this time, who shall save Israel out of the hand of the Egyptians--and it is further said, that at the time of his birth, the whole house was filled with a great light, as the light of the sun and moon;''

upon which they had raised expectations of him: though this phrase, "fair to God", may be only an Hebraism, just as Niniveh is said to be a city "great to God", i.e. exceeding great, Jon_3:3 it being usual with the Jews to join the word God to an adjective, to express the superlative degree; and so it is rightly rendered here, "exceeding fair: and nourished up in his father's house three months"; so long he was hid by his mother there, which was a great instance of her faith; see Exo_2:2. The reason why he was kept no longer there was, because as the Jews say (u), the three months after Jochebed was delivered of a son, the thing was known in the house of Pharaoh, wherefore she could hide him no longer.

HERY, "III. The raising up of Moses to be their deliverer. Stephen was charged with having spoken blasphemous words against Moses, in answer to which charge he here speaks very honourably of him. 1. Moses was born when the persecution of Israel was at the hottest, especially in that most cruel instance of it, the murdering of the new-born children: At that time, Moses was born (Act_7:20), and was himself in danger, as soon as he came into the world (as our Saviour also was at Bethlehem) of falling a sacrifice to that bloody edict. God is preparing for his people's deliverance, when their way is darkest, and their distress deepest. 2. He was exceedingly fair; his face began to shine as soon as he was born, as a happy presage of the honour God designed to put upon him;

he was asteios�tō�Theō - fair towards God; he was sanctified from the womb, and this

made him beautiful in God's eyes; for it is the beauty of holiness that is in God's sight of great price.

JAMISO 20-22,"In which time— of deepest depression.

Moses was born— the destined deliverer.

exceeding fair— literally, “fair to God” (Margin), or, perhaps, divinely “fair” (see on Heb_11:23).

CALVI, "20.It is not without cause that Stephen noteth the circumstance of time. Moses was born at the very same time when the king had commanded that all the men children should be cast out. Therefore, it seemeth that the minister of deliverance is dead before he is born. But that time is most fit for God to work in, when there is no hope or counsel to be looked for at man’s hands. And it appeareth also most plainly how God doth make perfect his power in man’s weakness, (2

Corinthians 41:9.) Moses is kept three months, but at length his parents (that they may save their own lives) are enforced to cast him out into the river. Only they put him into a little coffer, (407) that he may not by and by [immediately] perish. When as Pharaoh’s daughter taketh him up, he escaped death indeed, yet so that he goeth into another nation, being cut off from the kindred of Israel. Yea, he was like to be a most troublesome adversary to his nation, unless God had restrained his mind. It is forty years before he showeth any token of brotherly good-will.

COSTABLE, "Moses, the great deliverer of his people, was born, preserved, protected (by Pharaoh's daughter no less), and educated in Egypt.

". . . the pillar of the Law was reared in a foreign land and in a Gentile court." [ote: Ibid., p. 111.]Moses became a powerful man in word (his writings?) and deed. All this took place outside the Promised Land, which further depreciated the importance of that land.

Like Moses, Jesus was lovely in God's sight when He was born, because God chose Him, and Mary nurtured Him at home before He came under the control of the Egyptians temporarily (cf. Matthew 1:18-21). Moses had great knowledge, as did Jesus; both became powerful men in words and deeds (Acts 7:22).

". . . after forty years of learning in Egypt, God put him [Moses] out into the desert. There God gave him his B. D. degree, his Backside of the Desert degree, and prepared him to become the deliverer." [ote: McGee, 4:539.]

ELLICOTT, "(20) Exceeding fair.—Literally, as in the margin, fair to God. The adjective is found in the LXX. of Exodus 2:2, as applied to Moses. The special idiom for expressing pre-eminent excellence is itself essentially Hebrew, the highest goodness being thought of as that which approves itself as good to God; but this also had become familiar to Hellenistic Jews through the LXX. version, as, e.g., in Jonah 3:3, a city “great to God” = an exceeding great city. St. Paul’s “mighty to God” (2 Corinthians 10:4) is probably an example of the same idiom. Josephus, following probably some old tradition (Ant i. 9, § 6), describes the beauty of the infant Moses as such that those who met him turned to gaze in admiration.

21 When he was placed outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him and brought him up as her own son.

BARES, "Was cast out -When he was exposed on the banks of the Nile, Exo_2:3.

And nourished him - Adopted him, and treated him as her own son, Exo_2:10. It is implied in this that he was educated by her. An adopted son in the family of Pharaoh would be favored with all the advantages which the land could furnish for an education.

GILL, "And when he was cast out,.... Into the river, or by the river, as some copies read; the Syriac version adds, by his own people; by his father and mother and sister; who might be all concerned in it, and were privy to it; and which was done after this manner; his mother perceiving she could keep him no longer, made an ark of bulrushes, daubed with slime and pitch, into which she put him; and then laid it in the flags, by the river's side, and set his sister Miriam at a proper distance, to observe what would be done to him, Exo_2:3.

Pharaoh's daughter took him up; her name, according to Josephus (w), was "Thermuthis"; she is commonly, by the Jews (x), called "Bithiah"; and by Artapanus in Eusebius (y), she is called "Merrhis". This princess coming down to the river to wash, as she and her maidens were walking by the river side, spied the ark in which the child was laid, among the flags, and ordered one of her maids to go and fetch it; and which being done by her orders, is attributed to her; and opening the ark, she was struck at once with the loveliness of the babe, and being filled with compassion to it, which wept, she took him,

and nourished him for her own son: not that she took him to the king's palace, and brought him up there, but the case was this; Miriam the sister of Moses, observing what was done, and perceiving the inclination of Pharaoh's daughter to take care of the child, offered to call an Hebrew nurse, to nurse the child for her; to which she agreed, and accordingly went and fetched her own and the child's mother, who took it upon wages, and nursed it for her; and when it was grown, brought it to her, who adopted it for her son, Exo_2:5. According to Josephus (z), and some other Jewish writers (a), so it was, that when the child was taken out of the ark, the breast was offered it by several Egyptian women, one after another, and it refused to suck of either of them; and Miriam being present, as if she was only a bystander and common spectator, moved that an Hebrew woman might be sent for; which the princess approving of, she went and called her mother, whose breast the child very readily sucked; and at the request of the princess she took and nourished it for her: according to Philo the Jew (b), this princess was the king's only daughter, who had been a long time married, but had had no children, of which she was very desirous; and especially of a son, that might succeed in the kingdom, that so the crown might not pass into another family; and then relating how she came with her maidens to the river, and found the child; and how that the sister of it, by her orders, fetched an Hebrew nurse to her, which was the mother of the child, who agreed to nurse it for her; he suggests that from that time she gave out she was with

child and feigned a big belly, that so the child might be thought to be γνησιος�αλλ'�µη�

υποβολιµαιος "genuine, and not counterfeit": but according to Josephus (c), she adopted him for her son, having no legitimate offspring, and brought him to her father, and told him how she had taken him out of the river, and had nourished him; (Josephus uses the same word as here;) and that she counted of him to make him her son, and the successor of his kingdom; upon which Pharaoh took the child into his arms, and embraced him,

and put his crown upon him; which Moses rolling off, cast to the ground, and trampled upon it with his feet: other Jewish writers say (d), that he took the crown from off the king's head, and put it on his own; upon which, the magicians that were present, and particularly Balaam, addressed the king, and put him in mind of a dream and prophecy concerning the kingdom being taken from him, and moved that the child might be put to death; upon which his daughter snatched it up, and saved it, the king not being forward to have it destroyed: and they also tell this story as a means of saving it, that Jethro who was sitting by, or Gabriel in the form of one of the king's princes, suggested that the action of the child was not to be regarded, since it had no knowledge of what it did; and as a proof of it, proposed that there might be brought in a dish, a coal of fire, and a piece of gold, or a precious stone; and that if he put out his hand and laid hold on the piece of gold, or precious stone, then it would appear that he had knowledge, and deserved death; but if he took the coal, it would be a plain case that he was ignorant, and should be free: the thing took with the king and his nobles, and trial was made, and as the child put out his hand to lay hold on the piece of gold or precious stone, the angel Gabriel pushed it away, and he took the coal, and put it to his lips, and to the end of his tongue; which was the cause of his being slow of speech, and of a slow tongue: by comparing Philo's account with this text, one would be tempted to think that Pharaoh's daughter did really give out, that Moses was her own son; and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews seems to confirm this, Heb_11:24 who says, "that Moses denied to be called, or that he was the son of Pharaoh's daughter"; as the words may be rendered.

HERY, "He was wonderfully preserved in his infancy, first, by the care of his tender parents, who nourished him three months in their own house, as long as they durst; and then by a favourable providence that threw him into the arms of Pharaoh's daughter, who took him up, and nourished him as her own son (Act_7:21); for those whom God designs to make special use of he will take special care of. And did he thus protect the child Moses? Much more will he secure the interests of his holy child Jesus (as he is called Act_4:27) from the enemies that are gathered together against him.

PETT 21-22, "‘And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and works.’

But the future deliverer was not brought up by his own people under the instruction of his own rulers, he was brought up under ‘foreign’ instruction. He was brought up by Pharaoh’s daughter who cared for him as her own son. And there he learned foreign wisdom, and was mighty in word and works (compare Luke 24:19). We have continually the stress that God’s deliverers were not brought up in the equivalent of mainstream Judaism. In the same way, he wants them to realise, the Prophet Who had come, who was like Moses (Acts 7:37), was the man of Galilee, not the man of Jerusalem.

22 Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

BARES, "Moses was learned - Or, was “instructed.” It does not mean that he had that learning, but that he was carefully “trained” or educated in that wisdom. The passage does not express the fact that Moses was distinguished for “learning,” but that he was carefully “educated,” or that pains were taken to make him learned.

In all the wisdom ... - The learning of the Egyptians was confined chiefly to astrology, to the interpretation of dreams, to medicine, to mathematics, and to their sacred science or traditionary doctrines about religion, which were concealed chiefly under their hieroglyphics. Their learning is not infrequently spoken of in the Scriptures, 1Ki_4:30; compare Isa_19:11-12. Their knowledge is equally celebrated in the pagan world. It is known that science was carried from Egypt to Phoenicia, and thence to Greece; and not a few of the Grecian philosophers traveled to Egypt in pursuit of knowledge. Herodotus himself frankly concedes that the Greeks derived very much of their knowledge from Egypt. (See Rawlinson’s Herodotus, vol. 2, pp. 80, 81; Herodotus, bk. 2, pp. 50, 51.)

And was mighty -Was powerful, or was distinguished. This means that he was eminent in Egypt before he conducted the children of Israel forth. It refers to his addresses to Pharaoh, and to the miracles which he performed “before” their departure.

In words - From Exo_4:10, it seems that Moses was “slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.” When it is said that he was mighty in words, it means that he was mighty in his communications to Pharaoh, though they were spoken by his brother Aaron. Aaron was in his place, and “Moses” addressed Pharaoh through him, who was appointed to deliver the message, Exo_4:11-16.

Deeds -Miracles, Exo. 7, etc.

CLARKE, "In all the wisdom of the Egyptians -Who were, at that time, the most intelligent and best instructed people in the universe. Philo says, Moses was taught arithmetic, geometry, poetry, music, medicine, and the knowledge of hieroglyphics. In Sohar Cadash, fol. 46, it is said, “that, of the ten portions of wisdom which came into the world, the Egyptians had nine, and that all the inhabitants of the earth had only the remaining portion.” Much of the same nature may be seen in the rabbins, though they apply the term wisdom here to magic.

Was mighty in words and in deeds - This may refer to the glorious doctrines he taught, and the miracles he wrought in Egypt. Josephus Ant. lib. ii. cap. 10, sect. 1, gives an account of his being general of an Egyptian army, defeating the Ethiopians, who had invaded Egypt, driving them back into their own country, and taking Saba their capital, which was afterwards called Meroe. But this, like many other tales of the same writer, is worthy of little credit.

Phoenix says the same of Achilles: -

Μυθων�τε�Bητηρ’�εµεναι,�πρηκτηρα�τε�εργων.

Il. ix. v. 443.

Not only an orator of words, but a performer of deeds.

GILL, "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Which was reckoned very considerable: 1Ki_4:30 Philo the Jew says (e) that he learned arithmetic, geometry, and every branch of music, the hieroglyphics, the Assyrian language, and the Chaldean knowledge of the heavens, and the mathematics; yet was not a magician, or skilled in unlawful arts, as Justin suggests (f):

and was mighty in words; he had a command of language, and a large flow of words, and could speak properly and pertinently upon any subject; for though he was slow of speech, and of tongue, and might have somewhat of a stammering in speaking, yet he might have a just diction, a masculine style, and a powerful eloquence, and the matter he delivered might be very great and striking:

and in deeds; or in "his deeds", as the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read: he was a man of great abilities, and fit for business both in the cabinet and in the field. Josephus (g) relates an expedition of his against the Ethiopians, whilst he was in Pharaoh's court, in which he obtained victory over them, when the Egyptians had been greatly oppressed by them; in which his prudence and fortitude were highly commended.

HERY, "He became a great scholar (Act_7:22): He was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, who were then famed for all manner of polite literature, particularly philosophy, astronomy, and (which perhaps helped to lead them to idolatry) hieroglyphics. Moses, having his education at court, had opportunity of improving himself by the best books, tutors, and conversation, in all the arts and sciences, and had a genius for them. Only we have reason to think that he had not so far forgotten the God of his fathers as to acquaint himself with the unlawful studies and practices of the magicians of Egypt, any further than was necessary to the confuting of them. 5. He became a prime minister of state in Egypt. This seems to be meant by his being mighty in words and deeds. Though he had not a ready way of expressing himself, but stammered, yet he spoke admirably good sense, and every thing he said commanded assent, and carried its own evidence and force of reason along with it; and, in business, none went on with such courage, and conduct, and success. Thus was he prepared, by human helps, for those services, which, after all, he could not be thoroughly furnished for without divine illumination. Now, by all this, Stephen will make it appear that, notwithstanding the malicious insinuations of his persecutors, he had as high and honourable thoughts of Moses as they had.

JAMISO,"mighty in words— Though defective in utterance (Exo_4:10); his recorded speeches fully bear out what is here said.

and deeds— referring probably to unrecorded circumstances in his early life. If we are to believe Josephus, his ability was acknowledged ere he left Egypt.

CALVI, "22.Whereas Luke reporteth that he was taught in all wisdom of the Egyptians, he putteth that in his commendation as a point of excellency.

otwithstanding, it might have so fallen out, as it doth oftentimes, that being puffed up with profane sciences, he might have despised the base common people; yet because God had determined to redeem his people, he doth, in the mean season, frame both the mind of Moses and all other things to finish his work. The reason of man’s flesh (408) should murmur in this place, Why doth God wink at so long miseries of the people? Why doth he suffer Pharaoh to rage more cruelly daily? Why doth he not suffer Moses to grow up amongst his own people? Why doth he after a sort cut him off from the kindred of Israel, being adopted by the king’s daughter? Why will he suffer him to remain amidst courtly pleasures, (409) and doth not rather pull him thence? But the end itself is so wonderful, that we are enforced to confess that all these things were governed by singular counsel and order to set forth the glory of God.

Whereas I said that Luke speaketh in this place of the learning of the Egyptians for honor’s sake, I would not have it so taken as if there were in the same no corruption. Forasmuch as astrology (410) doth consider the wonderful workmanship of God, not only in the placing of the stars, and in such excellent variety, but also in their moving, force, and secret offices, it is a science both profitable and worthy of praise. The Egyptians bestowed great study in this, but being not content with the simple order of nature, they wandered also into many foolish speculations, as did the Chaldeans. It is uncertain whether Moses was infected with these superstitions or no. Yet, howsoever it be, we see how sincerely and plainly he setteth that before us to be considered in the frame of the world, which is appertinent unto godliness. Surely this was excellent modesty, in that he which could reason with learned and witty men of the secrets of nature, doth not only omit higher subtleties, but doth also descend unto the common capacity of every most simple man, and doth, in a common style, set forth unto men unlearned those things which they perceive by experience. When Justinian [Justin] babbleth concerning Moses, he maketh him a magician, which, with juggling and enchantments, made passage for the people through the Red Sea; so that Satan did not only go about to bury the power of God, but also to blaspheme the same. But we know that Moses did not strive with the enchanters by magic, but did that only which God had enjoined him.

Furthermore, the Egyptians had mystical divinity, wherewith they colored their doting inventions and monstrous abominations, as if they would prove that they went mad not without reason: as the Papists, whereas they delude and mock men like stage-players, in their mass and other foolish rites, yet they invent mysteries, that they may persuade men that there is nothing there but that which is divine. The common sort of priests cannot climb so high, but those which amongst them will be accounted more cunning (411) do omit no rite, how foolish and childish soever it be, affirming that there is some spiritual mystery in every [one] of them. There is extant concerning this matter a most foolish mingle-mangle, which they call the Rationall [Rationale] of Divine Offices. But forasmuch as sacrificing priests alone did use such dotings amongst themselves, it is not to be thought that Moses spent any time in these, whose bringing up was princely, but that he was taught in liberal arts.

He was mighty. This phrase doth express among the Hebrews a double excellency,

when as he which doth excel in wit and learning, is also apt to attempt and bring to pass great and weighty matters. (412) Stephen’s meaning is, therefore, that Moses was furnished with rare gifts, so that they did all confess that he was a singular man. But seeing he was in such estimation, the Israelites had the less hope that he should be the minister which should work their deliverance.

BESO, "Acts 7:22. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians —Which was then celebrated in all the world, and for many ages after. Geography, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, natural history, physic, and hieroglyphics, are all mentioned by ancient writers as branches of Egyptian literature. Several ancient testimonies to the extraordinary learning of Moses may be seen in Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clemens Alexandrinus. And was mighty in words — Deep, solid, weighty, though not of a ready utterance. “It expresses,” says Doddridge, “such a weight and solidity in his counsels and speeches, as may be very consistent with the want of a flowing elocution;” and in deeds — Referring to the astonishing miracles which God wrought by him. We may observe here, that it must have been a great piece of self-denial, such as none but a lover of learning, and one who has made some progress in it, can understand, for a person of such a genius and education as Moses, in the prime of life, to leave the polite court of Egypt, and live as a retired shepherd in the Arabian desert.

COKE, "Acts 7:22. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,— Where the wisdom of a man is spoken of, that which is characteristic of it must needs be meant; where the wisdom of a particular man, that which is peculiar to his quality and profession. St. Stephen in this place speaks of both: in both, therefore, he must mean civil or political wisdom; for in that the Egyptian nation was principally distinguished; and in that the true character of Moses, whether we consider his rank, his education, or his office, was eminently comprised. He became at length the leader and lawgiver of a numerous people: but more than this, St. Stephen is here speaking of him under his public character, and therefore must necessarily be understood to mean, that Moses was consummate in the science of legislation. The words indeed are, all the wisdom of the Egyptians: but every good reasoner knows, that where the thing spoken of refers to some particular use, (as here Moses's to the conducting the Israelites out of Egypt,) the particle all cannot mean all of every kind, but all the parts of one kind: in this restrained sense, all is frequently used in the sacred writings. But further, the concluding part of the character,—and mighty in words and deeds, will not easily suffer the foregoing part to admit of any other interpretation. Mighty in words and deeds, was in a natural sense the precise character of the ancient chiefs, who, leading a free and willing people, needed the arts of peace, such as persuasion and law making—the words; and the arts of war, such as conduct and courage,—the deeds. Hence it is that Jesus, who was the prophet like unto Moses, the legislator of the new covenant, as Moses was of the old, and the conductor of our spiritual warfare, is characterized in the same words, A prophet mighty in deed and word, before God, and all the people. Luke 24:19. This wisdom, therefore, in which Moses was said to be versed, we conclude was the practical part of philosophy, in contradistinction to the theoreticalor speculative.

This is the interpretation which Bishop Warburton gives in his Divine Legation, book 4: sect. 6. Several eminent commentators, however, suppose that a general erudition is referred to. Dr. Benson gives the following paraphrase of the verse: "By this means Moses had a most liberal education, being instructed in all the learning of the Egyptians; which were then the most learned people upon earth; and, though he could not speak fluently, he became mighty and powerful both in word and deed; that is, his speeches were solid and wise, and his actions virtuous, honest, and brave." Several ancient testimonies to the extraordinary learning of Moses may be seen in Philo de Vit. Mos. lib. 1: p. 470. Justin Mart. Quaest. ad Orthod. 25: Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 3: p. 139. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1: p. 343.

ELLICOTT, "(22) Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.—Better, was trained, or instructed. There is no direct statement to this effect in the history of the Pentateuch, but it was implied in Moses being brought up as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, and was in harmony with later paraphrases and expansions of the earlier history. The narrative of Josephus (as above) and the references in the ew Testament to Jannes and Jambres as the magicians who withstood Moses (2 Timothy 3:8), and to the dispute of Michael and Satan as to his body (Jude 1:9), indicate the wide acceptance of some such half-legendary history. The passage is instructive, (1) as an indirect plea on the part of Stephen, like that afterwards made by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 5, § 28; 6:5, § 42) and Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 1-4), for the recognition of heathen wisdom as an element in the divine education of mankind; (2) as having contributed to fix the attention of the more cultivated and scholarly of the early Christian critics, such as those named, and Origen, and Jerome, and Augustine, on the teaching of Greek poets and philosophers, and having furnished them with a sanction for such studies.

Mighty in words and in deeds.—Josephus (Ant. ii. 10), still following the same traditional history, relates that Moses commanded the Egyptian forces in a campaign against the Ethiopians, and protected them against the serpents that infected the country, by transporting large numbers of the ibis that feeds on serpents. The romance was completed by the marriage of Moses with the daughter of the Ethiopian king who had fallen passionately in love with him. This was possibly a development of the brief statement in umbers 12:1. The language of Moses (Exodus 4:10), in which he speaks of himself as “not eloquent” and “slow of speech,” seems at first inconsistent with “mighty in words,” but may fairly be regarded as simply the utterance of a true humility shrinking from the burden of a mighty task.

23 “When Moses was forty years old, he decided

to visit his own people, the Israelites.

BARES, "Full forty years old - This is not recorded in the Old Testament; but it is a constant tradition of the Jews that Moses was 40 years of age when he undertook to deliver them. Thus, it is said, “Moses lived in the palace of Pharaoh forty years; he was forty years in Midian; and he ministered to Israel forty years” (Kuinoel).

To visit ... - Probably with a view of delivering them from their oppressive bondage. Compare Act_7:25.

CLARKE, "When he was full forty years old - This was a general tradition among the Jews: “Moses was forty years in Pharaoh’s court, forty years in Midian, and forty years he served Israel.”

To visit his brethren - Probably on the ground of trying to deliver them from their oppressive bondage. This desire seems to have been early infused into his mind by the Spirit of God; and the effect of this desire to deliver his oppressed countrymen was his refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter - see Heb_11:24, and thus renouncing all right to the Egyptian crown, choosing rather to endure addiction with the people of God than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.

GILL, "And when he was full forty years old,.... This Stephen had from tradition, and not from Scripture, which is silent about the age of Moses at this time, and only says, "it came to pass in those days when Moses was grown", Exo_2:11 but that he was at this time at such an age, is the general sense of the Jews. Upon the above mentioned passage they have this note (h).

"twenty years old was Moses at that time; and there are that say, that he was forty years old. And (i) elsewhere still more particularly; Moses was "forty" years in the palace of

Pharaoh, forty years in Midian, (the Amsterdam edition reads, במדבר, "in the wilderness", wrongly,) and he served Israel forty years.''

Indeed, the fabulous history of his life makes him to be but fifteen years of age at this time (k); but Stephen's account is undoubtedly right, and which is confirmed by the above testimonies.

It came into his heart; by the Spirit of God, under a more than ordinary impulse of which he now was:

to visit his brethren, the children of Israel; whom he knew to be his brethren, partly from the common report in Pharaoh's court concerning him, and partly from the mark of circumcision in his flesh, and chiefly from divine revelation: for some years he had lived a courtly and military life, and had took no notice of the Israelites in their oppressions; but now the Lord laid it upon his heart to visit them, and observe how things were with them; and though he could not use any public and open authority, yet

Philo the Jew says (l), that he exhorted the officers to use mildness and moderation with them, and comforted and encouraged the Israelites to bear their burdens with patience and constancy, and not sink under them; suggesting, that things would take another turn, and would change for the better in time.

HERY, " The attempts which Moses made to deliver Israel, which they spurned, and would not close in with. This Stephen insists much upon, and it serves for a key to this story (Exo_2:11-15), as does also that other construction which is put upon it by the apostle, Heb_11:24-26. There it is represented as an act of holy self-denial, here as a designed prelude to, or entrance upon, the public service he was to be called out to (Act_7:23): When he was full forty years old, in the prime of his time for preferment in the court of Egypt, it came into his heart (for God put it there) to visit his brethren the children of Israel, and to see which way he might do them any service; and he showed himself as a public person, with a public character.

JAMISO 23-37,"In Act_7:23, Act_7:30, Act_7:36, the life of Moses is represented as embracing three periods, of forty years each; the Jewish writers say the same; and though this is not expressly stated in the Old Testament, his age at death, one hundred twenty years (Deu_34:7), agrees with it.

it came into his heart to visit his brethren— his heart yearning with love to them as God’s chosen people, and heaving with the consciousness of a divine vocation to set them free.

CALVI, "23.When the time was fulfilled. Many gather by this that Moses was never estranged in mind from his nation; but the words of Stephen incline rather toward the contrary, to wit, that the Spirit of God did at length awake his mind, as it were out of sleep, that he might at length go visit his brethren, whom he had long time neglected. It is to be thought that he was not ignorant of what stock he came, seeing he had some token thereof in his flesh, and seeing the rumor thereof was spread abroad in the court, because the king’s daughter could not adopt him to be her son without some suspicion of wickedness, unless his kindred had been known; yet was it long before he was of such courage that he durst make known the love which he bare toward his kindred. And this serveth not a little to set forth the glory of God, that Moses, being ignorant of his calling, doth remain a long time idle in the king’s court, and is afterward called of the Lord contrary to the hope of all men, and his own also. Therefore, this new care for his brethren which came into his mind, proceeded from a new and unwonted motion of God’s Spirit.

BESO, "Acts 7:23-25. When he was forty years old — So long he continued in Pharaoh’s court; it came into his heart — Probably by an impulse from God; to visit his brethren — He having been instructed, it appears, in the knowledge of his real descent, and in the principles of the Jewish religion; and it is likely his spirit was so impressed with a concern for their welfare, that all the pleasure and grandeur at the court of Egypt could not make him easy, without going in person to take a view of their state. And seeing one of them suffer wrong — Probably by one of the task-masters; he defended him — And smiting the Egyptian with a mortal wound, he at

once rescued and avenged him that was oppressed — See note on Exodus 2:11-12. For he supposed his brethren would have understood, &c. — The manner in which Stephen expresses himself, seems to imply, that he considered Moses as doing this action in consequence of a special impression from God on his mind, intimating to him the important work for which he was intended, that God by his hands would deliver them — Two things are here proper to be inquired into, namely, 1st, By what authority or right Moses slew the Egyptian. 2d, What reason he had to expect the people should understand that God designed him for their deliverer? “The Jewish historians,” says Whitby, “give us a very easy solution of these difficulties; for, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, their priests declare that Moses slew the Egyptian with a word, and so gave them a miracle to prove his mission: and Josephus assures us, that ‘God appeared to Amram, the father of Moses, as he was praying to him for the afflicted Jews, and said to him, Thy son, now in the womb of thy wife, shall escape the hand of the Egyptians, and shall deliver the Hebrews from the afflictions of Egypt; and that, to confirm this vision, his wife brought him forth without any pain.’ The Jerusalem Talmud likewise declares that Moses slew the Egyptian by the spirit of prophecy, or by an extraordinary impulse from God; and Maimonides makes this action one degree of prophecy. And thus, as Stephen here says: it came into his heart, namely, from God, to visit his brethren: and indeed otherwise he could not have justified this fact to God and his own conscience. ow Moses, knowing what had been declared of him to his father, and by this action working deliverance to one of them, might justly hope they would look upon him as one appointed by God to be their deliverer.” Dr. Benson, however, not crediting these stories, thinks “it does not appear that Moses had as yet any prophecy to assure him that he was the person who should deliver Israel; but, knowing there was a divine promise of deliverance made to, and retained in the house of Israel; that he himself had been extraordinarily preserved and educated, and that the time of their deliverance was approaching, he showed himself willing to run all hazards and dangers with the people of God, rather than continue in the splendour of the Egyptian court; and that when the time should be fully come, he would cheerfully join and head them, in order to rescue them from their bondage and cruel slavery.” But it seems there is more than this implied in the verse; and though we may have no certain information of any prophecy that Moses had yet received, it does not follow but he might have received some private revelation from God, that he was the person appointed by him to deliver the Israelites. But they understood not — Such was their stupidity and sloth, which made him afterward unwilling to go to them.

COSTABLE 23-29, "Moses' presumptive attempt to deliver his people resulted in his having to flee Egypt for Midian where he became an alien (cf. Acts 7:6). These verses relate another story of an anointed leader of God's people, like Joseph, being rejected by those people. Yet God did not abandon Moses or his people. God blessed Moses in a foreign land, Midian, by giving him two sons.

Moses offered himself as the deliverer of his brethren, but they did not understand him. The same thing happened to Jesus. Moses' Jewish brethren who did not recognize that God had appointed him as their ruler and judge rejected him even though Moses sought to help them. Likewise Jesus' Jewish brethren rejected Him.

Moses' brethren feared that he might use his power to destroy them rather than help them. Similarly the Jewish leaders feared that Jesus with His supernatural abilities might bring them harm rather than deliverance and blessing (cf. John 11:47-48). This rejection led Moses to leave his brethren and to live in a distant land where he fathered sons (Acts 7:29). Jesus too had left His people and had gone to live in a distant land where He was producing descendants (i.e., Christians).

24 He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the Egyptian.

BARES, "Suffer wrong - The wrong or injury was, that the Egyptian was smiting the Hebrew, Exo_2:11-12.

Smote the Egyptian - He slew him, and buried him in the sand,

CLARKE, "Smote the Egyptian - See this explained, Exo_2:11, Exo_2:12 (note).

GILL, "And seeing one of them suffer wrong,.... Beza's Cambridge copy, and one of Stephens's, and one in the Bodleian library add, "of his own kindred": and so Exo_

2:11 he is said to be "one of his brethren"; which Aben Ezra explains, ממשפחתו, "of his family", one of the tribe of Levi; and so another Jewish writer (m) is very particular, and says,

"Moses went out to the camp of the Israelites, and saw an Egyptian smite one of the sons of Kohath, who was of his brethren of the tribe of Levi, as it is said, Exo_2:11.''

This man, according to some of the Jewish writers (n), was the husband of Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, Lev_24:11 but, according to others, it was Dathan (o): the cause and manner of his suffering wrong was this, as they report (p); one of the taskmasters having set his eyes upon his wife, who was a beautiful woman, came early one morning, and got him out of his house to work, and then went into his wife, and lay with her; which when the man understood, he made some disturbance about it, for which he caused him to serve in very hard bondage, and beat him severely; who flying to Moses for protection,

he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed; he took his part, and screened him from the insults and blows of the officer, and avenged his cause:

and smote the Egyptian; and killed him: it is commonly said by the Jews (q), that he killed him by the sword of his mouth, by making use of the word Jehovah; though others (r) say, he smote him with his fist, which is more likely; or rather with his sword; the Ethiopic version adds, "and buried him in the sand". Beza's ancient copy, and one of Stephens's, add, "and he hid him in the sand", as it is in Exo_2:12 and which the Jews understand not literally of any sand pit, into which he might cast him, and cover him; or of the sand of the sea, near which he was, and which does not appear; but mystically of the people of Israel, comparable to the sand of the sea, among whom he hid him. So in one of their Midrashes (s) it is observed on these words,

"and "he hid him in the sand"; though there were none there but the Israelites---who are like to sand: he said unto them, ye are like the sand; take this man here and put him there, and his voice is not heard; so this thing will be hid among you, and not heard. And so you find that the thing was not heard but by the means of the Hebrews, as it is said, "and he went out on the second day, and two men of the Hebrews", &c.''

And another of their (t) writers, says, that when Moses saw the Egyptian smiting the Hebrew,

"he began to curse him, and took the sword of his lips, and killed him, and hid him in the camp of the Israelites, as it is said, Exo_2:12 not in the sand, but among the Israelites: hence it is said, "the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea", Hos_1:10.''

To which may be added what one of their chronologers (u) affirms, that

"Moses slew the Egyptian with the ineffable name of God, and hid him among the children of Israel, who are like to sand.''

This Egyptian is said, by Jarchi, to be one of the taskmasters who was appointed over the officers of Israel, who, from the cockcrowing, kept them to their work, which is very probable.

HERY, "As Israel's saviour. This he gave a specimen of in avenging an oppressed Israelite, and killing the Egyptian that abused him (Act_7:24). Seeing one of his brethren suffer wrong, he was moved with compassion towards the sufferer, and a just indignation at the wrong-doer, as men in public stations should be, and he avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian, which, if he had been only a private person, he could not lawfully have done; but he knew that his commission from heaven would bear him out, and he supposed that his brethren (who could not but have some knowledge of the promise made to Abraham, that the nation that should oppress them God would judge) would have understood that God by his hand would deliver them; for he could not have had either presence of mind or strength of body to do what he did, if he had not been clothed with such a divine power as evinced a divine authority. If they had but understood the signs of the times, they might have taken this for the dawning of the day of their deliverance; but they understood not, they did not take this, as it was designed, for the setting up of a standard, and sounding of a trumpet, to proclaim Moses their deliverer.

JAMISO,"avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian—

going farther in the heat of his indignation than he probably intended.

CALVI, "24.When he saw a certain man. Moses came not to this spectacle by chance, but forasmuch as God had appointed him to be the deliverer of his people, he would have him show forth this token, and, as it were, make this beginning. For Stephen doth plainly express that he did attempt nothing unadvisedly, but did that which became him that was appointed to be a deliverer of the people, knowing that he was thereunto called. For unless God had armed him, (and made him puissant,) it had been a thing altogether unlawful for him to kill any man, how wicked soever he had been. It is a godly deed, and praiseworthy, for a man to set himself against the wicked, to defend the good against the injuries of the wicked, to bridle their violence; but it is not for a private person to punish, (or take vengeance.) Therefore, it was unlawful for Moses to slay the Egyptian, save only inasmuch as the Lord had put the sword in his hand according to the right of his calling. But this heroical courage and nobleness of heart (413) was a work of the Holy Ghost; because God doth mightily show forth his power in those whom he appointeth unto great matters, that they may be able to fulfill their function. In sum, Stephen meaneth that Moses was even then offered to be the minister of deliverance when the day was at hand, according to the covenant made with Abraham, yet did the people hope for nothing less.

COKE, "Acts 7:24. And seeing one of them suffer, &c.— See Exodus 2:11 where the word is מכה meche, which sometimes signifies to smite so as to kill; and the Israelite is here represented as καταπονουµενω, subdued in a struggle, and in immediate danger of his life: so that Moses had no occasion for a divine impulse in order to his doing this action; for, (not to mention, that God most probably would have supported him afterwards, and he needed not to have fled for it,) as the Egyptian had got the Israelite down, and was, as appeared by all circumstances, just going to kill him; Moses only defended the injured, and vindicated the innocent when oppressed; a thing which any person may lawfully do at any time, or in any place for a stranger, and much more for his own friend: nay, the thing was in itself so far from a crime, that it was highly laudable and praise-worthy; and what Moses might, with great reason, have done to the Israelite, had he been going as unjustly to kill the Egyptian. It is true, that justice could not be then had in the Egyptian court in behalf of the Israelites; and therefore some may think it was in those circumstances imprudent. But it must be remembered, that, according to the history, Exodus 2:12. Moses used all proper precautions, and looked every way to see whether there were any Egyptians in sight, before he ventured to rescue his brother from the hand of the oppressor, and from death: and had not the Israelites themselves discovered it, it is highly probable that Pharaoh would never have known it. So that it is easy to vindicate the justice and prudence of this action of Moses. See the notes on Exodus 2.

25 Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not.

BARES, "For he supposed - This is not mentioned by Moses; but it is not at all improbable. When they saw him “alone” contending with the Egyptian; when it was understood that he had come and taken vengeance on one of their oppressors, it might have been presumed that he regarded himself as directed by God to interpose, and save the people.

CLARKE, "He supposed his brethren would have understood, etc. - He probably imagined that, as he felt from the Divine influence he was appointed to be their deliverer, they would have his Divine appointment signified to them in a similar way; and the act of justice which he now did in behalf of his oppressed countryman would be sufficient to show them that he was now ready to enter upon his office, if they were willing to concur.

GILL, "For he supposed his brethren would have understood him,.... From his being an Hebrew in such high life; from his wonderful birth, and miraculous preservation in his infancy, and education in Pharaoh's court; and from the promise of God that he would visit them and save them:

how that God by his hand would deliver them: wherefore he was the more emboldened to kill the Egyptian, believing that his brethren would make no advantage of it against him; but look upon it as a beginning and pledge of their deliverance by him:

but they understood not; or "him not", as the Ethiopic version reads; they did not understand that he was to be their deliverer, or that this action of his was a token of it.

JAMISO,"For he supposed his brethren would have understood, etc.—and perhaps imagined this a suitable occasion for rousing and rallying them under him as their leader; thus anticipating his work, and so running unsent.

but they understood not— Reckoning on a spirit in them congenial with his own, he had the mortification to find it far otherwise. This furnishes to Stephen another example of Israel’s slowness to apprehend and fall in with the divine purposes of love.

COKE, "Acts 7:25. He supposed his brethren would have understood— It appears from this passage, that Moses had received some immediate revelation from God, that he was the person who should deliver Israel: besides, knowing that there was a

divine promise of deliverance made to, and retained in the house of Israel; that he himself had been extraordinarily preserved and educated, and that the time of their deliverance was approaching, he shewed himself willing to run all hazards and dangers with the people of God, rather than continue in the splendor of the Egyptian court; and that when the time should be fully come, he would cheerfully join and head them in order to rescue them from their bondage and cruel slavery.

26 The next day Moses came upon two Israelites who were fighting. He tried to reconcile them by saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why do you want to hurt each other?’

BARES, "And the next day - Exo_2:13.

He showed himself - He appeared in a sudden and unexpected manner to them.

Unto them - That is, to “two” of the Hebrews, Exo_2:13.

As they strove - As they were engaged in a quarrel.

Have set them at one - Greek: “would have urged them to peace.” This he did by remonstrating with the man that did the wrong.

Saying -What follows is not quoted literally from the account which Moses gives, but it is substantially the same.

Sirs - Greek: “Men.”

Ye are brethren - You belong not only to the same nation, but you are brethren and companions in affliction, and should not, therefore, contend with each other. One of the most melancholy scenes in the world is that, where those who are poor, and afflicted, and oppressed, add to all their other calamities altercations and strifes among themselves. Yet it is from this class that contentions and lawsuits usually arise. The address which Moses here makes to the contending Jews might be applied to the whole human family in view of the contentions and wars of nations: “Ye are “brethren,” members of the same great family, and why do you contend with each other?”

CLARKE, "Unto them as they strove - Two Hebrews, See on Exo_2:13 (note), etc.

GILL, "And the next day he showed himself to them, as they strove,.... To two men of the Hebrews, who were quarrelling and contending with one another: these are

said by the Jews (w) to be Dathan and Abiram; who were disputing and litigating the point, and were very warm, and at high words. The occasion of their contention is (x)said to be this,

"the Hebrew man (that had been abused) went to his house to divorce his wife, who was defiled, but she fled and told the affair to Abiram her brother: and on the morrow, Moses returned a second time to the Hebrew camp, and found Dathan and Abiram contending about the divorce.''

Though some think this is prophetically said, because they afterwards contended and divided in the business of Korah (y) Moses came up to them, and let them know who he was; and this was the day after he had killed the Egyptian. So Stephen explains the "second day" in Exo_2:13 and to this agrees what a Jewish writer (z) says, that in the morning, Moses returned a second time to the camp of the Hebrews:

and would have set them at one again; persuaded them to peace and concord, composed their difference, reconciled them, and made them good friends:

saying, sirs, ye are brethren; as Abraham said to Lot, when there was a strife between their herdsmen, Gen_13:8 and if these two were Dathan and Abiram, they were brethren in the strictest sense, Num_16:1

why do ye wrong one to another? by abusing each other, calling ill names, or striking one another; or by lifting up the hand to strike, as Jonathan the Targumist says Dathan did against Abiram.

HERY 26-29, "As Israel's judge. This he gave a specimen of, the very next day, in offering to accommodate matters between two contending Hebrews, wherein he plainly assumed a public character (Act_7:26): He showed himself to them as they strove, and, putting on an air of majesty and authority, he would have set them at one again, and as their prince have determined the controversy between them, saying, Sirs, you are brethren, by birth and profession of religion; why do you wrong one to another? For he observed that (as in most strifes) there was a fault on both sides; and therefore, in order to peace and friendship, there must be a mutual remission and condescension. When Moses was to be Israel's deliverer out of Egypt, he slew the Egyptians, and so delivered Israel out of their hands; but, when he was to be Israel's judge and lawgiver, he ruled them with the golden sceptre, not the iron rod; he did not kill and slay them when they strove, but gave them excellent laws and statutes, and decided upon their complaints and appeals made to him, Exo_18:16. But the contending Israelite that was most in the wrong thrust him away (Act_7:27), would not bear the reproof, though a just and gentle one, but was ready to fly in his face, with, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?Proud and litigious spirits are impatient of check and control. Rather would these Israelites have their bodies ruled with rigour by their task-masters than be delivered, and have their minds ruled with reason, by their deliverer. The wrong-doer was so enraged at the reproof given him that he upbraided Moses with the service he had done to their nation in killing the Egyptian, which, if they had pleased, would have been the earnest of further and greater service: Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday? Act_7:28, charging that upon him as his crime, and threatening to accuse him for it, which was the hanging out of the flag of defiance to the Egyptians, and the banner of love and deliverance to Israel. Hereupon Moses fled into the land of Midian,and made no further attempt to deliver Israel till forty years after; he settled as a

stranger in Midian, married, and had two sons, by Jethro's daughter, Act_7:29.

JAMISO,"next day he showed himself unto them as they strove— Here, not an Israelite and an Egyptian, but two parties in Israel itself, are in collision with each other; Moses, grieved at the spectacle, interposes as a mediator; but his interference, as unauthorized, is resented by the party in the wrong, whom Stephen identifies with the mass of the nation (Act_7:35), just as Messiah’s own interposition had been spurned.

CALVI, "26.The day following he appeared. Stephen declareth now that the fathers did not only neglect, but maliciously reject the grace of God. For although the evil which he mentioneth did proceed from one man only, yet doth he by right assign the fault unto them all. For if they had been thankful to God, they would all with one consent have repressed his forwardness. (414) But they are whisht, (415) and suffer that good turn which Moses had done to be upbraided unto him; and, so much as in them lieth, they bring them into extreme danger whom they ought to have defended by endangering themselves. (416) Therefore, his drift is this, that the people themselves were in the fault, that they were no sooner delivered and eased. (417) So the wickedness of men doth oftentimes hinder God from doing that [which] he would do. He is ready to help those that be his in due time, but we keep back his hand from ourselves with divers lets, and afterwards we complain of his slowness, but unjustly. Furthermore, this unthankfulness was too wicked against God, and too cruel against Moses. They were to thank God for giving such a faithful patron in the king’s court. They were to love and reverence Moses; but they rewarded him full evil (418) with threatenings and reproaches. Furthermore, inasmuch as the fact was brought to the king’s ears, we must needs impute that to the treachery of the people. Therefore, as when afterward the people could see the land of Canaan, they did through their own folly keep themselves from entering in; so now, refusing the grace of God in the person of one man, they cause the time of their deliverance to be deferred forty years. For although God had determined what he would do, yet those are justly blamed for the delay which hinder (419) Moses in his office.

Men ye are brethren. There is, indeed, amongst men a general conjunction, so that they ought to use great courtesy one toward another, and to abstain from all injuries; but this is more unmeet and intolerable, when those hurt one another who are nearer linked together. Therefore, Moses doth not only use a general reason, that it may revoke (420) their minds which were desirous to do harm, but he mentioneth their kindred and fellowship of blood to mollify their cruelty. Yet all in vain; for he which had done injury to his neighbor doth forwardly thrust him from him, and addeth thereunto threatening. And this is a common thing amongst men; for an evil conscience doth drive men into fury, and the worse every man’s cause is, the more boldly and cruelly doth he extol himself. But under what color doth he which hath the worst cause set himself so stubbornly against Moses? He saith he is no judge; but he did not reprove them according to authority, but did only friendly admonish them. Is it the duty of a judge alone to admonish us when we do amiss? But this is a common vice, used of all stubborn and unruly persons, to give place to no admonitions, save only when they are enforced by violence and authority; yea,

they are like frantic [phrenzied] men who rail upon (421) their physicians. For which cause we must be the more careful to bridle our lust, lest we run headlong with such blind fury against those which are desirous to cure our vices. Furthermore, we are taught by this example, that the servants of God cannot so do their duty in reproving such vices of men, but they shall suffer many injuries, offend many, and incur dangers; and chiefly when they do well, they shall surely hear evil. But they must swallow up the unworthiness of these evils, (422) that they may not therefore cease to do that which the Lord commanded them, and which he alloweth. (423) Moses is burdened here with a cruel false accusation that he usurpeth the authority of a ruler, and by this means they lay treason to his charge. Secondly, it is objected unto him reproachfully that he slew an Egyptian; both these were very odious. Whereby we may gather with how dangerous a temptation the mind of the holy man was stricken. And forasmuch as we see that he was neither discouraged by exile, neither by any other evils, so that it did not repent him of his well-doing, let us also learn by his example to bear a valiant and strong mind and courage against all such assaults of Satan,

BESO, "Acts 7:26-29. The next day he showed himself unto them — Of his own accord, unexpectedly; as they strove — As they were quarrelling with each other; and would have set them at one — That is, by interposing between them, he would have put an end to their quarrel, and have persuaded them to live in peace and friendship; saying, Sirs, ye are brethren — Descended from Jacob, our common ancestor, and now also joined in affliction as well as in religion; which things ought doubly to cement your affections to each other; why then do you injure one another? But he that did his neighbour wrong — Unable to bear with his plain and faithful reproof; insolently thrust him away — As a person that had nothing to do in their controversy; saying, Who made thee a ruler, &c., over us? — Thus, under the pretence of the want of a call by man, the instruments of God are often rejected. The speech of this single person is represented (Acts 7:35) as expressing the sentiments of the whole body of the people, as their slowness afterward to believe the mission of Moses, when attested by miracle, (Exodus 5:20-21,) seems evidently to show that it was. Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian, &c. — His blood may cost thee dear enough, without adding mine to it. Then fled Moses — Finding the matter was discovered, and being apprehensive that, in consequence of it, the Egyptian power would soon be armed against him, while the Israelites were not inclined to use any efforts for his protection, nor to put themselves under his guidance. See the note on Exodus 2:15. And was a stranger in the land of Madian — Where he became shepherd to Jethro, the prince of the country, and marrying Zipporah his daughter, he begat two sons, Gershom and Eliezer.

COKE, "Acts 7:26. Set them at one again,— And would have persuaded them at peace. Acts 7:27. Thrust him away, &c.] It is plain, that the speech of this single person is represented, Acts 7:35 as expressing the sentiments of the whole body of the people; as their slowness afterwards to believe the mission of Moses, when attended by miracles, seems evidently to shew that it was. See Exodus 5:20-21.

27 “But the man who was mistreating the other pushed Moses aside and said, ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us?

BARES, "But he that did ... - Intent on his purpose, filled with rage and passion, he rejected all interference, and all attempts at peace. It is usually the man that does the injury that is unwilling to be reconciled; and when we find a man that regards the entreaties of his friends as improper interference, when he becomes increasingly angry when we exhort him to peace, it is usually a strong evidence that he is conscious that he has been at fault. If we wish to reconcile parties, we should go first to the man that has been injured. In the controversy between God and man, it is the “sinner” who has done the wrong that is unwilling to be reconciled, and not God.

His neighbour - The Jew with whom he was contending.

Who made thee ... -What right have you to interfere in this matter? The usual salutation with which a man is greeted who attempts to prevent quarrels.

GILL, "But he that did his neighbour wrong,.... Who seems to be the same person whom Moses had defended the day before; and, according to the Jews, must be Dathan (a): the same

thrust him away; from them, when he went to part them, and persuade them to be good friends:

saying, who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? which was very ungrateful, if he was the man he had delivered the day before; and very impertinent, since he did not take upon him to rule and judge, but only to exhort and persuade to peace and brotherly love: the language suits with the spirit of Dathan or Abiram; Num_16:3 This is thought to be said to him by way of contempt of him, as being a very young man: the words are thus commented on in one of the ancient commentaries of the Jews (b),

"R. Judah says, Moses was twenty years of age at that time: wherefore it was said to him, thou art not yet fit to be a prince and a judge over us, seeing one of forty years of age is a man of understanding. And R. Nehemiah says, he was forty years of age; See Gill on Act_7:23 and it was said to him, truly thou art a man, but thou art not fit to be a prince and a judge over us: and the Rabbans say, he said to him, art thou not the son of Jochebed, though they call thee the son of Bithiah? and dost thou seek to be a prince and a judge over us? it is known concerning thee what thou didst to the Egyptian.''

28 Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’[e]

BARES, "Wilt thou kill me ... - How it was known that he had killed the Egyptian does not appear. It was probably communicated by the man who was rescued from the hands of the Egyptian, Exo_2:11-12.

GILL, "Wilt thou kill me as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday? That is, is it thy will? dost thou design to kill me? or, as in Exo_2:14 "intendest" thou to kill me? In the Hebrew text it is, "wilt thou kill me, dost thou say?" that is, as Aben Ezra rightly interprets it, dost thou say so "in thine heart?" which is a much better observation than that of Jarchi's;

"from hence we learn, says he, that he slew him by the ineffable name:''

though this is the sense of some of their ancient doctors (c);

""to kill me dost thou say?" it is not said, "dost thou seek?" but "dost thou say?" from whence you may learn, that the ineffable name was made mention of over the Egyptian, and he slew him.''

The word "yesterday" is added by Stephen, but with great truth and propriety, and is in the Septuagint version of Exo_2:14. The "as" here does not intend the manner of killing, whether by the fist or sword, or by pronouncing the word Jehovah, as Jarchi thinks, but killing itself, by whatsoever way; and the words were very spitefully said, on purpose to publish the thing, and to expose Moses to danger of life, as it did.

JAMISO,"Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?—Moses had thought the deed unseen (Exo_2:12), but it now appeared he was mistaken.

29 When Moses heard this, he fled to Midian, where he settled as a foreigner and had two sons.

BARES, "Then fled Moses ... -Moses fled because he now ascertained that what he had done was known. He supposed that it had been unobserved, Exo_2:12. But he now thought that the knowledge of it might reach Pharaoh, and that his life might thus be endangered. Nor did he judge incorrectly; for as soon as Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to take his life, Exo_2:15.

Was a stranger - Or became a sojourner πάροικος paroikos, one who had a

temporary abode in the land. The use of this word implies that he did not expect to make that his permanent dwelling.

In the land of Madian - This was a part of Arabia. “This would seem,” says Gesenius, “to have been a tract of country extending from the eastern shore of the Elanitic Gulf to the region of Moab on the one hand, and to the vicinity of Mount Sinai on the, other. The people were nomadic in their habits, and moved often from place to place.” This was extensively a desert region, an unknown land; and Moses expected there to be safe from Pharaoh.

Where he begat two sons - He married Zipporah, the daughter of “Reuel” Exo_2:18, or “Jethro” Num_10:29; Exo_3:1, a “priest” of Midian. The names of the two sons were Gershom and Eliezer, Exo_18:3-4.

GILL, "Then fled Moses at this saying,.... For hereby the thing was known to Pharaoh, being presently carried to court, who sought to kill him for it, Exo_2:15 The Jews have a very fabulous story, that Moses was taken up upon it, and put in prison, and delivered into the hands of an executioner to be put to death; but that God wrought a miracle for him; he made his neck as hard as a pillar of marble, and the sword turned upon the neck of the executioner, and he died; and God sent Michael, the prince, in the likeness of the executioner, who took Moses by the hand, and led him out of Egypt, and left him at the borders of it, the distance of three days' journey (c) but the truth of the matter is, as Stephen relates, he fled directly, as soon as he heard the above words, for he knew his life was in the utmost danger:

and was a stranger in the land of Madian; which, as Josephus says (d), lay near the Red sea, and took its name from one of the sons of Abraham by Keturah. Philo the Jew (e) says, it was on the borders of Arabia; and according to Jerom (f), it was near Arnon and Areopolis, the ruins of which only were shown in his days; here he sojourned many years with Jethro the priest of that place:

where he begat two sons; whose names were Gershom and Eliezer, having married Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, Exo_18:2.

HERY, "Now let us see how this serves Stephen's purpose. 1. They charged him with blaspheming Moses, in answer to which he retorts upon them the indignities which their fathers did to Moses, which they ought to be ashamed of, and humbled for, instead of picking quarrels thus, under pretence of zeal for the honour of Moses, with one that had as great a veneration for him as any of them had. 2. They persecuted him for disputing in defence of Christ and his gospel, in opposition to which they set up Moses and his law: “But,” saith he, “you had best take heed,” (1.) “Lest you hereby do as your

fathers did, refuse and reject one whom God has raised up to be to you a prince and a Saviour; you may understand, if you will not wilfully shut your eyes against the light, that God will, by this Jesus, deliver you out of a worse slavery than that in Egypt; take heed then of thrusting him away, but receive him as a ruler and a judge over you.” (2.) “Lest you hereby fare as your fathers fared, who for this were very justly left to die in their slavery, for the deliverance came not till forty years after. This will be the issue of it, you put away the gospel from you, and it will be sent to the Gentiles; you will not have Christ, and you shall not have him, so shall your doom be.” Mat_23:38, Mat_23:39.

JAMISO,"Then fled Moses, etc.— for “when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses” (Exo_2:15).

PETT, "‘And Moses fled at this saying, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.’

The result was that the deliverer had fled and became a sojourner in Midian. Having rejected their deliverer they had lost him. ote that the place to which he fled was the place where the mountain of God was, ‘in this place’ (Acts 7:7). (In the same way his hearers should recognise that they too had lost sight of their prospective Saviour (John 8:21-22) and that He too had gone to where God was).

And there in the wilderness Moses begat two sons. Even though he had been rejected he was not totally without children (as Jesus already had children in those who had believed - John 13:33).

30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.

BARES, "And when forty years ... - At the age of 80 years. This, however, was known by tradition. It is not expressly mentioned by Moses. It is said, however, to have been after the king of Egypt had died Exo_2:23; and the tradition is not improbable.

In the wilderness of mount Sina - In the desert adjacent to, or that surrounded Mount Sinai. In Exo_3:1, it is said that this occurred at Mount “Horeb.” But there is no contradiction; Horeb and Sinai are different peaks or elevations of the same mountain. They are represented as springing from the same base, and branching out in different

elevations. The mountains, according to Burckhardt, are a prodigious pile, comprehending many peaks, and about thirty miles in diameter. From one part of this mountain, Sinai, the Law was given to the children of Israel.

An angel of the Lord - The word “angel” means properly a “messenger” (see the notes on Mat_1:20), and is applied to the invisible spirits in heaven, to people, to the winds, to the pestilence, or to whatever is appointed as a messenger “to make known” or to execute the will of God. The mere “name,” therefore, can determine nothing about the “nature” of the messenger. That “name” might be applied to any messenger, even an inanimate object. The nature and character of this messenger are to be determined by other considerations. The word may denote that the “bush on fire” was the messenger. But a comparison with the other places where this occurs will show that it was a celestial messenger, and perhaps that it was the Messiah who was yet to come, appearing to take the people of Israel under his own charge and direction. Compare Joh_1:11, where the Jews are called “his own.” In Exo_3:2, it is said that the angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire; in Exo_3:4 it is said that Yahweh spake to him out of the midst of the bush; language which implies that God was there, and which is strongly expressive of the doctrine that the angel was Yahweh. In Exo_23:20-21, God says, “I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey “his” voice,” etc., Exo_23:23; Exo_32:34; Exo_33:2. In all these places this angel is mentioned as an extraordinary messenger sent to conduct them to the land of Canaan. He was to guide them, to defend them, and to drive out the nations before them. All these circumstances seem to point to the conclusion that this was no other than the future deliverer of the world, who came then to take his people under his own guidance, as emblematic of the redemption of his people.

In a flame of fire - That is, in what “appeared” to be a flame of fire. The “bush” or clump of trees seemed to be on fire, or to be illuminated with a special splendor. God is often represented as encompassed with this splendor, or glory, Luk_2:9; Mat_17:1-5; Act_9:3; Act_12:7.

In a bush - In a grove, or clump of trees. Probably the light was seen issuing from the “midst” of such a grove.

CLARKE, "In a flame of fire in a bush - See this and the following verses largely explained in the notes on Exo_3:1-8 (note).

GILL, "And when forty years were expired,.... "Forty other years" the Arabic version reads; for so long the Jews (g) say Moses kept Jethro's flock, and so many years he lived in Midian; and so the Syriac version, "when then he had filled up forty years"; which agrees exactly with the account of the Jewish writers observed on Act_7:23 who say, that he was forty years in Pharaoh's court, and forty years in Midian; so that he was now, as they (h) elsewhere justly observe, fourscore years of age:

there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai; the same with Horeb, Exo_3:1 where it is said, "Moses came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb"; where he saw the sight of the burning bush, and out of which the angel appeared to him: and Stephen is to be justified in calling it Mount Sinai; the account which Jerom (i) gives of it is this;

"Horeb is the Mount of God in the land of Midian, by Mount Sinai, above Arabia, in the desert, to which is joined the mountain and desert of the Saracenes, called Pharan: but to me it seems, that the same mountain was called by two names, sometimes Sinai, and sometimes Horeb;''

and in which he was right. Some think the same mountain had two tops, and one went by one name, and the other by another; or one side of the mountain was called Horeb, from its being dry and desolate; and the other Sinai, from the bushes and brambles

which grew upon it. So סינין, "Sinin", in the Misna (k), signifies the thin barks of bramble

bushes; and the bush hereafter mentioned, in the Hebrew language, is called סנה, "Seneh"; from whence, with the Jews, it is said to have its name.

"Says (l) R. Eliezer, from the day the heavens and the earth were created, the name of this mountain was called Horeb; but after the holy blessed God appeared to Moses out of the midst of the bush, from the name of the bush "(Seneh)", Horeb was called Sinai.''

Some say the stones of this mountain, when broken, had the resemblance of bramble bushes (m) in them. Add to this, that Josephus (n) calls this mountain by the same name as Stephen does, when he is reciting the same history. Moses, he says,

"led the flock to the Sinaean mountain, as it is called: this is the highest mountain in that country, and best for pasture, abounding in good herbage; and because it was commonly believed the Divine Being dwelt there, it was not before fed upon, the shepherds not daring to go up to it.''

Here Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law; for to such a life did he condescend, who for forty years had been brought up in the court of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Here appeared to him

an angel of the Lord, and who was no other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as appears from Act_7:32 and was the second person in the Trinity, the Son of God, the angel of the divine presence, and of the covenant, an uncreated angel. And this is the sense of many of the Jewish writers, who interpret it of the angel the Redeemer, the God of Bethel (o); though Jonathan the paraphrast seems to understand it of a created angel, whose name he calls Zagnugael (p), and some say it was Michael, and some Gabriel (q).

In a flame of fire in a bush; and which yet was not consumed by it. This bush was a bramble bush, or thorn; so Aben Ezra (r) says it was a kind of thorn, and observes, that in the Ishmaelitish or Turkish language, the word signifies a kind of dry thorn; and so Philo the Jew says (s), it was a thorny plant, and very weak; and therefore it was the more wonderful, that it should be on fire, and not consumed. Josephus (t) affirms, that neither its verdure, nor its flowers were hurt, nor any of its fruitful branches consumed, though the flame was exceeding fierce. The Jerusalem Targum of Exo_3:2 is,

"and he saw and beheld the bush burned with fire, and the bush מרטיב: "became green";

or, as Buxtorf renders it, "emitted a moisture", and was not burnt.''

This sight, the Arabic writers (u) say, Moses saw at noon day. Artapanus (w), an ancient

writer, makes mention of this burning, but takes no notice of the bush; yea, denies that there was anything woody in the place, and represents it only as a stream of fire issuing out of the earth: his words are,

"as he (Moses) was praying, suddenly fire broke out of the earth, and burned, when there was nothing woody, nor any matter fit for burning in the place.''

But Philo better describes it; speaking of the bush, he says (x),

"no one bringing fire to it, suddenly it burned, and was all in a flame from the root to the top, as if it was from a flowing fountain, and remained whole and unhurt, as if it was no fuel for the fire, but was nourished by it.''

The Jews allegorize this vision different ways: sometimes they say (y),

"the fire designs the Israelites, who are compared to fire, as it is said, Oba_1:18 "the house of Jacob shall be a fire"; and the bush denotes the nations of the world, which are compared to thorns and thistles; so shall the Israelites be among the people, their fire shall not consume the people, who are like to thorns and briers; nor shall the nations of the world extinguish their flame, which is the words of the law: but in the world to come, the fire of the Israelites shall consume all people, who are compared to thorns and thistles, according to Isa_33:12'

But it is much better observed in the same place;

"the bush pricks, afflicts, and gives pain, why does he (the Lord) dwell in affliction and anguish? because he saw the Israelites in great affliction, he also dwelt with them in affliction, as it is said, Isa_63:9 "in all their affliction he was afflicted"''

And very appropriately is it remarked by Philo (z);

"the burning bush (says he) is a symbol of the oppressed, the flaming fire, of the oppressors; and whereas that which was burning was not burnt, it shows, that they that are oppressed shall not perish by those who attempt it; and that their attempt shall be in vain, and they shall escape safe.''

And so Aben Ezra has this note on Exo_3:2.

"the enemy is compared to fire, and Israel to the bush, wherefore it was not burnt:''

this may be very well considered as an emblem of the state of the Jewish people in fiery trials, and very severe afflictions; who were like a bush for the number of its twigs and branches, they being many, and for its weakness and liableness to be consumed by fire, and yet wonderfully preserved by the power and presence of God among them.

HERY, "Stephen here proceeds in his story of Moses; and let any one judge whether these are the words of one that was a blasphemer of Moses or no; nothing could be spoken more honourably of him. Here is,

I. The vision which he saw of the glory of God at the bush (Act_7:30): When forty years had expired (during all which time Moses was buried alive in Midian, and was now grown old, and one would think past service), that it might appear that all his

performances were products of a divine power and promise (as it appeared that Isaac was a child of promise by his being born of parents stricken in years), now, at eighty years old, he enters upon that post of honour to which he was born, in recompence for his self-denial at forty years old. Observe, 1. Where God appeared to him: In the wilderness of Mount Sinai, Act_7:30. And, when he appeared to him there, that was holy ground (Act_7:33), which Stephen takes notice of, as a check to those who prided themselves in the temple, that holy place, as if there were no communion to be had with God but there; whereas God met Moses, and manifested himself to him, in a remote obscure place in the wilderness of Sinai. They deceive themselves if they think God is confined to places; he can bring his people into a wilderness, and there speak comfortably to them. 2. How he appeared to him: In a flame of fire (for our God is a consuming fire), and yet the bush, in which this fire was, though combustible matter, was not consumed, which, as it represented the state of Israel in Egypt (where, though they were in the fire of affliction, yet they were not consumed), so perhaps it may be looked upon as a type of Christ's incarnation, and the union between the divine and human nature: God, manifested in the flesh, was as the flame of fire manifested in the bush. 3. How Moses was affected with this:

JAMISO,"an angel of the Lord— rather, “the Angel of the Covenant,” who immediately calls Himself JEHOVAH (Compare Act_7:38).

CALVI, "30.And when forty years were expired. As Moses was no blockish man, (424) every one of us may easily gather how many things might have come into his mind which might have caused him to mistrust his calling. The shifts and sleights of Satan are captious. We are more than bent naturally to distrustfulness; (425) what doubts soever arise in our minds concerning the word of God we do easily admit the same. It was a hard exchange to be thrust from earthly delights and a sumptuous life unto the painful and base office of feeding sheep; and especially forasmuch as Moses saw so much time spent, and being in the mean season sent into the wilderness, what other thing could he imagine with himself but that that was vain and a plain mock which the Lord had promised? Forasmuch as being now fourscore years of age, he was occupied about the feeding of his father-in-law’s sheep, when could he have hoped that there should have been any use of him in delivering the people? It is good for us oftentimes to call to mind these combats of the godly until they be thoroughly imprinted in our memory, lest our minds faint, and our hearts fail us, if the Lord make us stay longer than we could wish. Again, Moses giveth a notable example of modesty, seeing that in all that time he attempteth nothing; he raiseth no tumults, neither intrudeth himself any way to bear rule, as troublesome men use to do; but employeth himself in his shepherd’s function as diligently as if he should never have been called unto any greater charge. But whilst he tarrieth the Lord’s leisure so patiently, he [the Lord] appeareth unto him at length.

The angel of the Lord appeared unto him. It is first demanded who this angel was? and, secondly, why he appeared in such a form? For after that Luke had called him an angel, he bringeth him in immediately speaking thus: I am the God of Abraham, etc. Some answer, As God doth sometimes attribute and impart unto his ministers those things which are most proper to himself, so it is no absurd or inconvenient

thing, if they have his name given them; but seeing this angel affirmeth manifestly that he is the eternal God, who alone is, and in whom all things have their being, we must needs restrain this title unto the essence of God; for it can by no means agree to the angels. It might be said more fitly, that because the angel speaketh in the name of the Lord, he taketh upon him his person, as if he declared his commandments word for word, as out of the mouth of God, which manner of speaking is usual in the prophets; but when Luke shall say afterwards, that this was the same angel through whose assistance and guiding Moses delivered the people: and Paul, in the 10th chapter of the First to the Corinthians, (1 Corinthians 10:4) doth affirm that Christ was that guide, there is no cause why we should now wonder that the angel taketh to himself that which is proper to God alone.

Therefore, let us, first of all, set down this for a surety, that there was never since the beginning any communication between God and men, save only by Christ; for we have nothing to do with God, unless the Mediator be present to purchase his favor for us. Therefore, this place doth plentifully prove the divinity of Christ, and teacheth that he is of the same essence with the Father. Furthermore, he is called an angel, not only because he had the angels always to bear him company, and to be, as it were, his apparitors: (426) but because that deliverance of the people did shadow the redemption of us all, for whose sake Christ was to be sent of his Father, that he might take upon him the shape of a servant together with our flesh. It is certain, indeed, that God did never appear unto men as he is, but under some shape agreeable to their capacity; notwithstanding, there is another reason why Christ is called by this name, because he being appointed by the eternal counsel of God to be unto men the minister of salvation, doth appear unto Moses to this end. either is that contrary to this doctrine, which is written in the 2nd chapter to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 2:16) that Christ never took the angels, but the seed of Abraham; for although he took upon him the shape of an angel for a time, yet did he never take the nature of angels, as we know that he was made very man.

It resteth that we speak somewhat of the burning bush. That is common, that God doth apply the signs unto the things by a certain likelihood, and this is almost the common order and way of the sacraments. Furthermore, this was the fittest thing that could have been shown to Moses, to confirm his faith in the present business. He knew in what state he had left his nation. Although there were a greater (427) number of men, yet were they not unlike to a bush. For the thicker the bush is, and the more store of shrubs it hath, (428) the more subject is it to take fire, that it may burn on every side; so the people of Israel were but a weak band, and such as was laid open to all injuries; and this unwarlike multitude being pressed down even with their own weight, had incensed the cruelty of Pharaoh only with the prosperous success of increasing. Therefore, the people being oppressed with cruel tyranny, is, as it were, a pile of wood set on fire at every corner, neither is there any thing which keepeth it from being consumed to ashes, save this, because the Lord sitteth in the midst thereof; and although the [an] undoubted (429) fire of persecution did then burn, yet because the Church of God is never free from afflictions in the world, the continual estate thereof is after a sort painted out in this place. For what other thing are we but fuel for fire? And there fly abroad innumerable fire-brands of Satan

continually, which set on fire both our bodies and also our minds; but the Lord delivereth and defendeth us, by his wonderful and singular goodness, from being consumed. Therefore, the fire must needs burn, that it may burn us in this life; but because the Lord dwelleth in the midst of us, he shall so preserve us that afflictions shall do us no harm, as it is also said in the 46th Psalm, (Psalms 46:5.)

BESO, "Acts 7:30-34. When forty years were expired — That is, forty after his leaving Egypt; during which time Israel had continued under this bondage, and Moses, inured to hardships and poverty, and to contemplation and devotion, had been trained up and prepared, in the humble and retired life of a shepherd, for the great work for which God designed him; see on Exodus 2:22; there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina — Which lay in the confines of the Midianite country, not far from the Red sea; an angel of the Lord — The Son of God, as appears from his styling himself Jehovah; (see on Exodus 3:2;) a name which cannot, without the highest presumption, be assumed by any created angel, since he whose name alone is Jehovah, is the Most High over all the earth, Psalm lxxxiii, 18. It was therefore the Angel of the covenant: Malachi 3:1, the Angel of God’s presence, Isaiah 63:9, who delivered the law to Moses, and was with the church in the wilderness, and gave them possession of Canaan as the Captain of the Lord’s host, Joshua 5:14. In a flame of fire in a bush — Which, though of combustible matter, was not consumed; representing the state of Israel in Egypt, where, though they were in the fire of affliction, yet they were not consumed by it, but miraculously preserved as a people, and even increased. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight — Wondered why the bush, which burned, was not consumed: it was a phenomenon, with the solution of which all his Egyptian learning could not furnish him. And as he drew near to behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, &c. — Expressions sufficiently showing that the person speaking was not a mere angel, but possessed of true Deity, and therefore, as being also styled an angel, or messenger, was the Son of God, the Father’s Messenger to men. Then Moses trembled — Moses, upon this, perceiving that God himself was there present, and spake to him, trembled at this appearance of his majesty, and durst not behold with a curious regard, as he had intended. Then said the Lord, Put off thy shoes — An ancient token of reverence; for the place is holy ground — The holiness of places depends on the peculiar presence of God there. See the note on Exodus 2:5. “It was formerly in the eastern nations, and is now in the southern, esteemed a ceremony of respect, to put off the shoes when approaching a superior, lest any of the dirt or dust cleaving to the shoes should be brought near him, and that the person approaching barefoot might tread more cautiously. This, which perhaps was introduced at first in court apartments, where rich carpets might be used, the King of kings requires to be done in a desert, as a token of the infinitely greater reverence due to him. See Joshua 5:15, and Ecclesiastes 5:1. On the same principle, it seems, the priests ministered thus in the tabernacle and temple, no direction being given for shoes or sandals as a part of their dress, though all the rest of it was so particularly prescribed.” I have seen, I have seen the affliction — See note on Exodus 2:7-8.

COKE, "Acts 7:30. And when forty years were expired,— This circumstance might have been handed down by tradition, or received by immediate inspiration, as the express time of Moses's continuance in voluntary exile isnot mentioned in the Old Testament; and no doubt many other circumstances respecting that great legislator, which are not related in that concise history, were handed down either by tradition or by some writings then extant. Respecting the subsequent circumstances, we refer the reader to the notes on Exodus 3.

COSTABLE 30-34, "It was in Midian, after 40 years, that God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. The angel that appeared to Moses was the Angel of the Lord, very possibly the preincarnate Christ (Acts 7:31-33; cf. Exodus 3:2; Exodus 3:6; Exodus 4:2; John 12:41; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; Hebrews 11:26). God commanded Moses to return to Egypt as His instrument of deliverance for the Israelites. God revealed Himself and His Law outside the Holy Land.

Moses received a commission from God in Midian to return to his brethren to lead them out of their oppressed condition. Jesus, on God's order, will return to the earth to deliver Israel from her oppressed condition during the Tribulation when He returns at His second coming.

PETT 30-32, "‘And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to gaze at it, there came a voice of the Lord, “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” And Moses trembled, and did not dare to look.’

And God had appeared in fire, and had spoken to him declaring that He was the God of his fathers, the God Who had made His promises to Abraham (Acts 7:5). His promises of a deliverer were now about to be fulfilled (Acts 7:7). And Moses had wondered at the sight and had trembled, not daring to look on God.

(In the same way God had revealed Himself in fire at Pentecost. The God of Fire was again offering deliverance if only they would respond. Perhaps Stephen also saw a connection between the forty years of Moses and the forty days of Jesus resurrection appearances - Acts 1:3).

ELLICOTT, "(30) There appeared to him in the wilderness.—With the exception of the substitution of Sina, or Sinai, for the less familiar Horeb, the fact is stated in nearly the same words as in Exodus 3:2. The reference to this revelation, besides the bearing it had on the main argument of the speech, was indirectly an answer to the charge that he had spoken “blasphemous words against Moses.” Both in the Hebrew and the LXX. the word “angel” is, as here, without the article.

In a bush.—The Hebrew word seneh is used for a species of thorny acacia, which still grows in the wilderness of Sinai. The Greek word, in the LXX. and here, was

used commonly for the bramble, or any prickly shrub.

HAWKER 30-50, "And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. (31) When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, (32) Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. (33) Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt. (35) This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. (36) He brought them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37) This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. (38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (39) To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, (40) Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. (41) And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. (42) Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? (43) Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. (44) Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. (45) Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Joshua into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; (46) Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? (50) Hath not my hand made all these things?

Reader! pause to remark, a second forty years in the life of Moses had run out, before those visions of God began, which took place at the bush. What a wonder-working God is Israel’s God, in relation to his dealings with his people? We find, that at all ages, at all occasions, and in all departments of life, the manifestations of his love, in the first calls of his grace, have been, and still are, made known. No time, no place, nor circumstances, can preclude their operation. The charter of grace runs in very certain terms: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, Joh_6:37. In that day that the great trumpet shall be blown, they shall come which were ready to perish, Isa_27:13.

I have already, in the opening of this Chapter, made it appear very plain, that it was the Son of God which spake to Moses from the bush: (see Act_7:2-16. and the Comment upon the passage:) but in this place I would beg to add a short observation further. The inspired writer of the book of Exodus, (Exo_3:4) saith, that God called unto him out of the midst of the bush. And here Stephen confirms the same, when he saith, that the

words spoken were in a Covenant manifestation, as the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. So that it was not simply God, but God in Covenant; not only the glory of God in the person of Christ, but the glory of God’s grace in him, Joh_1:18. And I would not have the Reader overlook, or forget, that this manifestation had such a strong and lasting impression on the mind of Moses, that when he came to die, and as he blessed the tribes of Israel before his death, he dwelt with more affection upon this discovery of Covenant-love to his soul at the bush, than upon any other circumstance in his whole eventful life. As he pronounced his dying benediction, (and which was partly prophetical,) upon the tribe of Joseph, the blessings he prayed for were all founded in the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush: Deu_33:16, meaning God in flesh; Christ sealing all the blessings of the Covenant. Moses, by faith, beheld the Son of God then in our nature, as in a bush not consumed, because God dwelt in it: and finishing in that nature the whole purposes of redemption. Reader! first impressions of God’s revelations in Christ are precious things. A child of God will think of them with holy joy, in the last hours of his dwelling in a body of flesh. And not unfrequently will they arise warm in the soul, when all the powers of nature are growing cold in approaching death.

One word more on this passage. When the Lord speaks of having seen the affliction of his people in Egypt, having heard their groanings, knew their sorrows, and was come down to deliver them; in the commission given to Moses, we must look to an infinitely greater than Moses, and behold the Lord Jesus Christ. It is Jesus which is come down to deliver his people, from more than the Egyptian state of bondage, even from the captivity of sin and hell, and everlasting destruction. And the Lord’s people are indeed his people, by every tye which can make them so; from the everlasting betrothing of the Church, through all the time-state of the present existence, and leading into the eternity, which is to follow.

I admire the grace of the Lord, in repeating the assurance, of having perfect knowledge of his peoples’ sorrows. I have seen; I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt. Reader! think how since that period, the Lord hath given his Church a more palpable conviction, of the interest he takes in all that concerns his redeemed; in not only knowing, and seeing their afflictions, but by a fellow-feeling, taking part with them in all that belongs to them. Whoso toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye, Zec_2:8. In all their affliction, he is afflicted, Isa_63:9; Heb_5:1-2.

And there is a world of tenderness in the expression, my people. For it not only implies a peculiarity, whereby they differ from all the world beside; but a property, a right, which in every point, distinguishes them from every other nation under heaven. It is indeed a name, to signify the Lord’s right in them, and their right in all that belongs to the Lord, by virtue of their relationship, and a oneness of nature in him. Sweetly sung the Church to this union, when she said, I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine. Son_6:3.

I forbear to enlarge on the several other parts which Stephen brings forward, in reciting the outlines of the history of the Church. Indeed it cannot be necessary, as the word of God hath the whole very largely set forth, in its proper place. And the subject is too plain to need a comment. If the Reader wishes any further scriptural testimony, in confirmation, I would recommend him, to consult some, or all, of the following scriptures, Exo_19:3; Exo_19:9-10; Exo_20:2; Deu_5:2-4; Exo_33:11; Psa_83:18; Exo_24:18; 1Ki_8:27; Isa_66:2-13.

31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to get a closer look, he heard the Lord say:

BARES, "He wondered … - What particularly attracted his attention was the fact that the bush was not consumed, Exodus 3:2-3.

The voice of the Lord - Yahweh spake to him from the midst of the bush. He did not see him. He merely heard a voice.

GILL, "When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight,.... To see a bush on fire was no extraordinary thing; but to see a bush on fire, and yet not consumed by it, which was the case here, was wonderful indeed: and that an angel of the Lord, or the Lord himself, should appear in it, made it still more amazing; though, as yet, this was not observed by Moses, only the former; and which struck him with wonder, and excited his curiosity:

and as he drew near to behold it; to take a more exact view of it, and satisfy himself with the truth of it, and, if it was possible, to find out the reason why it was not burnt:

the voice of the Lord came unto him; to his ears, out of the bush, and expressed the following words.

CALVI, "31.He wondered at the vision. Let us know that God did use thus to deal with our fathers, that they might assuredly know his majesty; for he meant to make a manifest distinction between the visions which he showed, and the juggling casts of Satan. And this certainty is more necessary, for what credit should the oracles of God otherwise carry, wherein the covenant of eternal life is contained? Therefore, forasmuch as this alone is the true stay of faith, to have God to be the author thereof, that he may [he must needs] undoubtedly declare that it is he that speaketh. Again, forasmuch as Satan walketh about continually, and doth by many and

strange shifts insinuate himself, and hath so many ways to deceive, and especially seeing he doth pretend the name of God craftily, we must take great heed of his mocks. We see how in times past he deluded all nations, and [how he deludes] the Papists also. For all the monsters of superstitions, all the dotings of errors which were in times past, and do as yet reign in Popery, did proceed from dreams, visions, and false revelations; yea, furthermore, even the Anabaptists have their illusions thence. Therefore, this is the only remedy that God do distinguish by certain marks those visions which he showeth; for then are we without danger of erring, when he hath revealed his majesty unto us. For this cause was the mind of Moses stricken with admiration, and then afterwards he draweth near to consider; after that he is come nearer, the Lord toucheth him with a more lively feeling of [I confess indeed] his presence, so that he is afraid. For I confess that there are none of all these things which Satan cannot imitate, yet falsely like an ape. And the Lord doth not only show himself by such signs, but helping our dullness, he doth also open our eyes that we may not be deceived. Again, the Holy Ghost doth imprint in our minds certain marks and tokens of God’s presence, that there may no doubt remain.

ELLICOTT, "(31) The voice of the Lord came unto him.—The speech agrees with Exodus 3:4 in ascribing the voice to the Lord, the Eternal, while the visible manifestation was that of the angel of the Lord. It hardly belongs to the interpretation of the speech to discuss the relation between the two statements. Speaking generally, it may be said that all, or nearly all, theophanies, or divine manifestations, in the Old Testament addressed to the sense of sight resolve themselves into angelophanies, all manifestations addressed exclusively to the sense of hearing into revelations by the Son, as the LOGOS, or eternal WORD.

32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’[f] Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.

BARES, "Saying, I am the God … - See this explained in the notes on Matthew 22:32.

Then Moses trembled - Exodus 3:6.

GILL, "Saying, I am the God of thy fathers,.... Who made a covenant with them, promised the land of Canaan to them, and to their posterity, and to bring the children of Israel out of their servitude and bondage, and into the possession of the

promised land:

the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; words which our Lord makes use of to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, since God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; see Gill on Matthew 22:32.

Then Moses trembled; this Stephen had by tradition; in which way also the author of the epistle to the Hebrews had the account of his trembling and quaking at the same mount, when the law was given, Hebrews 12:21

and durst not behold; either "the sight" of the burning bush, and curiously consider and inquire into that, as the Syriac version reads; or him, as the Ethiopic version; that is, God, and which is expressed in Exodus 3:6

HERY, "II. The declaration which he heard of the covenant of God (Acts 7:32): The voice of the Lord came to him for faith comes by hearing and this was it: I am the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob and therefore, 1. "I am the same that I was." The covenant God made with Abraham some ages ago was, I will be to thee a God, a God all-sufficient. "ow," saith God, "that covenant is still in full force it is not cancelled nor forgotten, but I am, as I was, the God of Abraham, and now I will make it to appear so " for all the favours, all the honours God put upon Israel, were founded upon this covenant with Abraham, and flowed from it. 2. "I will be the same that I am." For if the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, cannot break the covenant-relation between God and them (as by this it appears it cannot), then nothing else can: and then he will be a God, (1.) To their souls, which are now separated from their bodies. Our Saviour by this proves the future state, Matthew 22:31,32. Abraham is dead, and yet God is still his God, therefore Abraham is still alive. God never did that for him in this world which would answer the true intent and full extent of that promise, that he would be the God of Abraham and therefore it must be done for him in the other world. ow this is that life and immortality which are brought to light by the gospel, for the full conviction of the Sadducees, who denied it. Those therefore who stood up in defence of the gospel, and endeavoured to propagate it, were so far from blaspheming Moses that they did the greatest honour imaginable to Moses, and that glorious discovery which God made of himself to him at the bush. (2.) To their seed. God, in declaring himself thus the God of their fathers, intimated his kindness to their seed, that they should be beloved for the fathers' sakes, Romans 11:28; Deuteronomy 7:8. ow the preachers of the gospel preached up this covenant, the promise made of God unto the fathers unto which promise those of the twelve tribes that did continue serving God hoped to come, Acts 26:6,7. And shall they, under colour of supporting the holy place and the law, oppose the covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed, his spiritual seed, before the law was given, and long before the holy place was built? Since God's glory must be for ever advanced, and our glorying for ever silenced, God will have our salvation to be by promise, and not by the law the Jews therefore who persecuted the Christians, under pretence that they blasphemed the law, did themselves blaspheme the promise, and forsook all their own mercies that were contained in it.

CALVI, "32.I am the God of thy fathers. ow, we see to what end the vision was offered to Moses; to wit, that the word of God might have his [its] authority. For bare visions should do but little good, unless doctrine were joined therewithal; and it is joined with them not as an inferior part, but as the cause of all visions and the end. And whereas he calleth himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there is a double reason why he calleth himself so. As the majesty of God is infinite, if we will comprehend it, it doth rather swallow up our senses; if we endeavor to ascend unto it we vanish away; therefore, he adorneth himself with titles under which we may comprehend him. But we must mark that God maketh choice of such titles, as that he may by them call us back unto his word. For he is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for this cause, because he committed unto them the doctrine of salvation, that he might thereby be known to the world. But God had respect properly unto the present circumstance when he spake to Moses on this wise; for both this vision, and the hope of the delivery of the people, and the commandment which he was about to give to Moses, did depend upon the covenant which he had made in times past with the fathers. So that the suspicion of novelty is taken away, and the mind of Moses is lifted up to hope for redemption, which was grounded in the whole (430) promise.

Therefore, this title is as much as if God had said, I, which have promised in times past to your fathers, that I have a care of your safety, which have taken the kindred of Abraham to my tuition by a free covenant, yea, which have appointed this time for an end of your bondage, I appear now unto thee, that I may perform that which I promised, like as at this day all the promises of God must lean and be stayed upon this foundation, that they may be sure and certain to us, that God hath adopted us in Christ, and hath promised that he will be our God and our Father. And Christ gathereth out of this place by good reason that the godly live after they be dead, (Matthew 22:32;) for if the whole man perish in death, this were an unfitting speech, (431) I am the God of Abraham. Let us suppose that there is no Rome, shall not he be laughed at which shall call himself consul of Rome? For this is requisite in relation, that the members be answerable between themselves. (432) There is also another reason to be considered, that forasmuch as God hath in his hand both life and death, without all doubt he preserveth those alive whose father he will be, and whom he counteth his children; therefore, though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob died, concerning the flesh, yet do they live in spirit with God.

And Moses being afraid. This might seem to be an absurd thing, that a voice full of consolation doth rather terrify Moses than make him glad; but it was good for Moses to be thus terrified with the presence of God, that he might frame himself unto the greater reverence; neither doth the voice of God alone strike his mind, but his majesty, whereof he saw a sign in the burning bush. And what marvel is it, if man be afraid when he seeth God? and especially let us remember that men’s minds are by this means prepared unto fear and reverence as in Exodus 20:22,

“Thou hast seen signs, thou hast heard the sound of the trumpet, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord.”

But some will say, Why dare not Moses now for fear consider, who was not afraid to draw near before? I answer, that the nearer we draw unto God, the more his glory doth appear, so are we the more afraid, and that by right. And God maketh Moses afraid for none other cause, save only that he may make him obedient unto him. This fear was a preparation not unfit for greater boldness; and to this end tendeth that which followeth, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for he is admonished by this sign with reverence to receive the commandments of God, and to give him due glory by all means.

ELLICOTT, "(32) The God of Abraham.—It is probable, on the assumption that Stephen had been one of the Seventy disciples of Luke 10:1, that he knew that these words had been cited by the Lord Jesus (Matthew 22:32) as witnessing against the unbelief of the Sadducees. In any case, the fact could hardly have been forgotten by the priestly and therefore Sadducean members of the Council, to whom Stephen addressed his defence. They had then been urged as a new proof of immortality, and therefore of the resurrection. They are now connected with the proclamation that He who then spake had himself been raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God.

33 “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.

BARES, "Then said the Lord … - In Exodus 3:5. To put off the shoes; or sandals, was an act of reverence. The ancients were especially not permitted to enter a temple or holy place with their shoes on. Indeed, it was customary for the Jews to remove their shoes whenever they entered any house as a mere matter of civility. Compare the notes on John 13:5. See Joshua 5:15. “The same custom, growing out of the same feeling,” says Prof. Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, pp. 74,75), “is observed among the Eastern nations at the present day. The Arabs and Turks never enter the mosques without putting off their shoes. They exact a compliance with this rule from those of a different faith who visit these sacred places. Though, until a recent period, the Muslims excluded Christians entirely from the mosques, they now permit foreigners to enter some of them, provided they leave their shoes at the door, or exchange them for others which have not been defiled by common use.

“A Samaritan from ablus, who conducted Mr. Robinson and Mr. Smith to the summit of Gerizim, when he came within a certain distance of the spot, took off his shoes, saying it was unlawful for his people to tread with shoes upon this ground, it being holy.”Is holy ground - Is rendered sacred by the symbol of the divine presence. We should enter the sanctuary, the place set apart for divine worship, not only with reverence in our hearts, but with every “external” indication of veneration. Solemn awe and deep seriousness become the place set apart to the service of God. Compare Ecclesiastes 5:1.

GILL, "Then said the Lord to him,.... To Moses, who through curiosity had made too near an approach:

put off thy shoes from thy feet; in token of humility, obedience, and reverence:

for the place where thou standest is holy ground; not really, but relatively, on account of the divine presence in it, and only so long as that continued.

CALVI, "33.Because the place wherein. The Lord meant by this commendation which he giveth to the place, to lift up the mind of Moses into heaven, that he might not think upon any earthly thing. And if so be that Moses was to be pricked forward with so many pricks, that having forgotten the earth, he might hearken to God, must not we have our sides even, as it were, digged through, (433) seeing we are an hundred times more slow than he? otwithstanding, here may a question be asked, how this place became so holy? for it was no more holy than other places before that day. I answer, that this honor is given to the presence of God, and not to the place, and that the holiness of the place is spoken of for man’s sake. For if the presence of God do make the earth holy, how much more force thereof ought men to have? (434) otwithstanding, we must also note, that the place was thus beautified only for a time, so that God did not fix his glory there, as Jacob erected an altar to God in Bethel, after that God had showed some token of his presence there, (Genesis 35:7.) When as his posterity did imitate the same afterward, it was such worship as was reproved. (435) Finally, the place is called holy for Moses’ sake only, that he may the better address himself to fear God and to obey him. Forasmuch as God doth now show himself unto us everywhere in Christ, and that in no obscure figures, but in the full light and perfect truth, we must not only put off our shoes from our feet, but strip ourselves stark-naked of ourselves. (436)

PETT 33-34, "‘And the Lord said to him, “Loose the shoes from your feet, for the place on which you stand is holy ground. I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you into Egypt.’

God had declared that the time for deliverance had come, the time when He would save His people from affliction. Moses was to acknowledge His holiness and

recognise that he was in the presence of God, and then God would send him from His presence to deliver His people.

(In the same way God’s present Deliverer was in the presence of God and waited to deliver all who would call on Him - Acts 2:36; Acts 2:39).

The continued emphasis on Egypt goes on (thirteen times) and in Acts 7:39 their hearts were still in Egypt. Where was their belief in the land then?

34 I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. ow come, I will send you back to Egypt.’[g]

BARES, "I have seen … - The repetition of this word is in accordance with the usage of the Hebrew writers when they wish to represent anything emphatically.

Their groaning - Under their oppressions.

Am come down - This is spoken in accordance with human conceptions. It means that God was about to deliver them.

I will send thee … - This is a mere summary of what is expressed at much greater length in Exodus 3:7-10.

GILL, "I have seen, I have see the affliction of my people, &c. The repetition of the phrase denotes the certainty of it, the exquisite and exact knowledge the Lord took of the affliction of his people, and how much his heart was affected with it:

which is in Egypt; from whence Moses had fled and had left them, he being now in the land of Midian, which was the place of his sojourning: and

I have heard their groaning; under their various oppressions and burdens, and by reason of the cruel usage of their taskmasters:

and am come down to deliver them; not by local motion, or change of place, God

being omnipresent, who fills all places at all times; but by the effects of his grace and power.

And now come, I will send thee into Egypt; to Pharaoh, the king of it, Exodus 3:10 to require of him to let the children of Israel go, and to deliver them out of their bondage.

HERY, "III. The commission which God gave him to deliver Israel out of Egypt. The Jews set up Moses in competition with Christ, and accused Stephen as a blasphemer because he did not do so too. But Stephen here shows that Moses was an eminent type of Christ, as he was Israel's deliverer. When God had declared himself the God of Abraham he proceeded, 1. To order Moses into a reverent posture: "Put off thy shoes from thy feet. Enter not upon sacred things with low, and cold, and common thoughts. Keep thy foot, Ecclesiastes 5:1. Be not hasty and rash in thy approaches to God tread softly." 2. To order Moses into a very eminent service. When he is ready to receive commands, he shall have commission. He is commissioned to demand leave from Pharaoh for Israel to go out of his land, and to enforce that demand, Acts 7:34. Observe, (1.) The notice God took both of their sufferings and of their sense of their sufferings: I have seen, I have seen their affliction, and have heard their groaning. God has a compassionate regard to the troubles of his church, and the groans of his persecuted people and their deliverance takes rise from his pity. (2.) The determination he fixed to redeem them by the hand of Moses: I am come down to deliver them. It should seem, though God is present in all places, yet he uses that expression here of coming down to deliver them because that deliverance was typical of what Christ did, when, for us men, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven he that ascended first descended. Moses is the man that must be employed: Come, and I will send thee into Egypt: and, if God send him, he will own him and give him success.

CALVI, "34.In seeing I have seen. God promiseth now that he will deliver his people, that he may appoint Moses to be his minister afresh, because the former objection was taken away by so long space of time. For God is said to see our miseries when he hath respect to us, and is careful for our safety; as he is said again to shut his eyes, and turn his back, when as he seemeth to set light by our cause. In like sort is he said to come down. He needeth not to move out of his place to help us, for his hand reacheth throughout the heaven and earth; but this is referred unto our understanding. For, seeing that he did not deliver his people from their affliction, he might seem that he was afar off, and was busied about some other thing in heaven. ow he saith that the Israelites shall perceive that he is nigh unto them. The sum tendeth to this end, that Moses knowing the will of God, may not doubt to follow him as a guide, and the more boldly to employ himself about the delivery of the people, which he knew was the work of God. For we must note that he saith that he heard the mourning of the people. For although he hath respect unto those which are in misery and unjustly oppressed, yet when we lay our mournings and complaints in his lap, he is especially moved to have mercy; although this word may be taken for those blind and confused complaints which are not directed unto God, as it is taken oftentimes elsewhere.

COFFMA, "To comment upon all of the references in this speech to incidents recorded in the Old Testament would be to write a commentary upon the history of Israel. It is amazing that Stephen should have been so completely filled with the knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. Outstanding in this passage is the reference to the "prophet like unto me" (Deuteronomy 18:15f). This was proof of the typical nature of Moses and of his pointing forward to the Christ, with the admonition that Israel should "hear him" or suffer the penalty of being cut off from being God's people. By this identification of his loyalty to Christ as being also loyalty to Moses and what Moses commanded, Stephen devastated any charge that he had blasphemed Moses. On the contrary, it was the Sanhedrin who were "blaspheming Moses" by their refusal to honor the words of Moses commanding men to receive and obey Christ.

35 “This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

BARES, "Whom they refused - That is, when he first presented himself to them, Exodus 2:13-14. Stephen introduces and dwells upon this refusal in order, perhaps, to remind them that this had been the character of their nation, and to prepare the way for the charge which he intended to bring against those whom he addressed, as being stiff-necked and rebellious. See Acts 7:51-52, etc.

A ruler - A military leader, or a governor in civil matters.

A deliverer - A Redeemer - λυτρωτὴν lutrōtēnIt properly means one who redeems a captive or a prisoner by paying a “price” or “ransom.” It is applied thus to the Lord Jesus, as having redeemed or purchased sinners by his blood as a price, Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18; Hebrews 9:12. It is used here, however, in a more “general” sense to denote “the deliverance,” without specifying the manner. Compare Exodus 6:6; Luke 24:21; Luke 1:68; Luke 2:38.

By the hand of the angel - Under the direction and by the “help” of the angel, umbers 20:16. See on Acts 7:30.

GILL, "This Moses, whom they refused,.... That is, the Israelites; the Ethiopic version reads, "his kinsmen denied"; those of his own nation, and even of his family: "saying, who made thee a ruler and a judge?" as Dathan, or whoever said the words in Acts 7:27.

the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer; or "a redeemer"; so the Jews often call Moses, sayingF26.

"as was the first redeemer, so shall be the last Redeemer.'

He was an eminent type of the Messiah; and the redemption of the people of Israel out of the Egyptian bondage, by him, was emblematical of redemption from the bondage of sin, Satan, and the law by Jesus Christ; and as Moses had his mission and commission from God, so had Jesus Christ, as Mediator; and as Moses was despised by his brethren, and yet made the ruler and deliverer of them, so, though Jesus was set at nought by the Jews, yet he was made both Lord and Christ, and exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour. Moses was sent "by the hands of the angel, which appeared to him in the bush"; and who was the second person in the Godhead; the Father sent him by the Son, not as an instrument, but as having the power and authority over him, to govern, direct, and assist him. The Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version read, "with the hand of the angel"; he sent Moses along with him to be used by him as an instrument in his hand, to deliver the people of Israel; nor does this at all contradict what the Jews sayF1 at the time of the passover:

"and the Lord hath brought us out of Egypt, לא על ידי מלאך, "not by the hands of an angel", nor by the hands of a seraph, nor by the hands of a messenger, but the holy blessed God, by his own glory, by himself;'

for he did not deliver them by a created angel, but by an uncreated one.

HERY, "IV. His acting in pursuance of this commission, wherein he was a figure of the Messiah. And Stephen takes notice here again of the slights they had put upon him, the affronts they had given him, and their refusal to have him to reign over them, as tending very much to magnify his agency in their deliverance. 1. God put honour upon him whom they put contempt upon (Acts 7:35): This Moses whom they refused (whose kind offers and good offices they rejected with scorn, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? Thou takest too much upon thee, thou son of Levi, umbers 16:3), this same Moses did God send to be a ruler, and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush. It may be understood either that God sent to him by the hand of the angel going along with him he became a complete deliverer. ow, by this example, Stephen would intimate to the council that this Jesus whom they now refused, as their fathers did Moses, saying, Who made thee a prophet and a king? Who gave thee this authority? even this same has God advanced to be a prince and a Saviour, a ruler and a deliverer as the apostles had told them awhile ago (Acts 5:30), that the stone which the builders refused was become the head-stone in the corner, Acts 4:11. 2. God showed favour to them by

him, and he was very forward to serve them, though they had thrust him away. God might justly have refused them his service, and he might justly have declined it but it is all forgotten: they are not so much as upbraided with it, Acts 7:36. He brought them out, notwithstanding, after he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt (which were afterwards continued for the completing of their deliverance, according as the case called for them) in the Red Sea and in the wilderness forty years. So far is he from blaspheming Moses that he admires him as a glorious instrument in the hand of God for the forming of the Old-Testament church. But it does not at all derogate from his just honour to say that he was but an instrument, and that he is outshone by this Jesus, whom he encourages these Jews yet to close with, and to come into his interest, not fearing but that then they should be received into his favour, and receive benefit by him, as the people of Israel were delivered by Moses, though they had once refused him.

CALVI, "35.Stephen passeth over many things, because he maketh haste unto this stun, that the Jews may understand that the fathers were not delivered therefore, because they had deserved that with their godliness, but that this benefit was bestowed upon them, being altogether unworthy; and, secondly, that there is some more perfect thing to be hoped for of these beginnings. When Moses, being ordained of God to be their revenger and deliverer, was now in a readiness, they stopped the way before him; therefore God doth deliver them now, as it were against their will. That which is added touching miracles and wonders, serveth as well to the setting forth of the grace of God, as to make known the calling of Moses. It is surely a strange thing, that God doth vouchsafe to declare his power by divers wonders, for such an unthankful people’s sake. But in the mean season, he bringeth his servant in credit. Therefore, whereas the Jews set less by him afterward, whereas they essay sometimes to drive him away by railing, whereas they scold sometimes, sometimes murmur, sometimes set upon him outrageously, they bewray thereby both their wickedness, and also their contempt of the grace of God. Their unthankfulness and ungodliness was so increased always, that God must needs have striven with wonderful patience with such a froward and stubborn people.

A ruler and a deliverer. We must understand the contrarieties (437) which augment the fault. They would have obeyed Moses if a tyrant had appointed him to be a judge, but they contemn him proudly, and refuse him disdainfully, being appointed of God, and that to be a deliverer. Therefore, in despising him, they were wicked; and in rejecting grace, unthankful. And whereas Moses hath such an honorable title given him, God doth not so give and resign unto man that honor which is due to himself, that he loseth any whit of his authority thereby. For doubtless Moses was not called a redeemer or deliverer in any other respect save only because he was the minister of God. And by this means the glory of the whole work remaineth in the power of God wholly. Therefore let us learn that so often as men have the titles which belong to God given them, God himself is not despoiled of his honor; but because the work is done by their hands, they are by this means commended. To this end tendeth that which Stephen saith, that this charge was committed to Moses in the hand of the angel. For by this means Moses is made subject to Christ, that under his conduct and direction he may obey God. For hand is taken in this place not for

ministry, but for principality. Wherefore, God did so use the service of Moses, that the power of Christ did surpass him, as he is even at this day the chief governor, in accomplishing the salvation of the Church; yea, he useth the ministry of men in that sort, that the force and effect dependeth upon him alone.

BESO, "Acts 7:35-36. This Moses, whom they refused — amely, forty years before: probably not they, but their fathers did it, and God imputes it to them. So God frequently imputes the sins of parents to those of their children who are of the same spirit. The same did God send to be a ruler and deliverer — Which is much more than a judge. By the hand — That is, by the means; of the angel — See on Acts 7:30. He brought them out — Though for a while he hesitated, he afterward complied, and at length led them forth in triumph, a willing people listed under his banner; after he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt — Which were afterward continued for the completing their deliverance, according as the case called for it; in the Red sea, and in the wilderness, forty years — During which space they were every day miraculously fed with manna from heaven, and conducted by a pillar of fire and cloud, and had a variety of other astonishing miracles wrought in their behalf continually. Thus Stephen is so far from blaspheming Moses, that he extols him as a glorious instrument in the hand of God in the forming of the Old Testament Church. But it does not at all derogate from his just honour, to say that he was but an instrument, and was excelled by Jesus, whom he encourages these Jews yet to receive and obey; not fearing, if they did so, but that they should be accepted, and obtain salvation by him, as the people of Israel were delivered by Moses, though they had once refused him.

COKE, "Acts 7:35. This Moses, whom they refused,— As the terms of high respect, in which St. Stephen, through the whole of his discourse, speaks of Moses, tended to shew how improbable it was, that he should have spoken contemptibly of him, as the witnesses pretended; so this circumstance of the Israelites having rejected him whom God had appointed to be a ruler and redeemer, plainly adverted to their usage of the Lord Jesus, whom they had lately rejected, but whom God had constituted a Saviour by the divine determination.

COSTABLE, "The very man whom the Israelite leaders had rejected as their ruler and judge (Acts 7:27) God sent to fulfill that role with His help (cf. Acts 3:13-15). Moses proceeded to perform signs and wonders in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness.

The third reference to 40 years (cf. Acts 7:23; Acts 7:30; Acts 7:36) divides Moses' career into three distinct parts. These stages were (1) preparation ending with rejection by his brethren, (2) preparation ending with his return to Egypt, and (3) ruling and judging Israel. The parallels with the career of Jesus become increasingly obvious as Stephen's speech unfolds.

"Jesus too had been brought out of Egypt by Joseph and Mary, had passed through

the waters of Jordan at his baptism (the Red Sea), and had been tempted in the wilderness for forty days." [ote: eil, p. 111.]As Moses became Israel's ruler and judge with angelic assistance, so will Jesus. As Moses had done miracles, so had Jesus. The ultimate prophet that Moses had predicted would follow him was Jesus (cf. Acts 3:22).

"Stephen naturally lingers over Moses, 'in whom they trusted' (Jn. Acts 7:45-47), showing that the lawgiver, rejected by his people (35), foreshadowed the experience of Christ (Jn. i. 11)." [ote: Blaiklock, p. 76.]

PETT, "‘This Moses whom they refused, saying, “Who made you a ruler and a judge?” him has God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.’

So the one whom Israel had first rejected, contemptuously refusing his rulership, God had now sent as Ruler and Saviour from the very hand of the One Who had appeared in the fire in the bush.

‘The Angel of the Lord’ was one way of describing a theophany, and throughout the Old Testament mainly describes God Himself as He makes Himself known.

(Stephen’s challenge to his hearers here is that they too must recognise the coming of a Deliverer and acknowledge Jesus as both Lord and Christ. For His Lordship too had been revealed in fire, through the fire at Pentecost).

36 He led them out of Egypt and performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the wilderness.

BARES, "Wonders and signs - Miracles, and remarkable interpositions of God. See the notes on Acts 2:22.

In the land of Egypt - By the ten plagues. Exodus 412.

In the Red sea - Dividing it, and conducting the Israelites in safety, and overthrowing the Egyptians, Exodus 14.

In the wilderness - During their forty years‘ journey to the promised land. The wonders or miracles were, providing them with manna daily; with flesh in a miraculous manner; with water from the rock, etc., Exodus 16; Exodus 17; etc.

CLARKE, "He brought them out, after that he had showed wonders, etc. - Thus the very person whom they had rejected, and, in effect, delivered up into the hands of Pharaoh that he might be slain, was the person alone by whom they were redeemed from their Egyptian bondage. And does not St. Stephen plainly say by this, that the very person, Jesus Christ, whom they had rejected and delivered up into the hands of Pilate to be crucified, was the person alone by whom they could be delivered out of their spiritual bondage, and made partakers of the inheritance among the saints in light? o doubt they felt that this was the drift of his speech.

GILL, "He brought them out,.... Of Egypt, and delivered them from all their oppressions in it:

after that he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt; by turning his rod into a serpent, and by his rod swallowing up the rods of the Egyptians, and by the ten plagues, which were inflicted on Pharaoh, and his people, for not letting the children of Israel go:

and in the Red sea; by dividing the waters of it, so that the people of Israel went through it as on dry ground, which Pharaoh and his army attempting to do, were drowned. This sea is called the Red sea, not from the natural colour of the water, which is the same with that of other seas; nor from the appearance of it through the rays of the sun upon it, or the shade of the red mountains near it; but from Erythrus, to whom it formerly belonged, and whose name signifies red; and is no other than Esau, whose name was Edom, which signifies the same; it lay near his country: it is called in the Hebrew tongue the sea of Suph, from the weeds that grew in it; and so it is in the Syriac version here:

and in the wilderness forty years; where wonders were wrought for the people in providing food for them, and in preserving them from their enemies, when at last they were brought out of it into Canaan's land, by Joshua. This exactly agrees with what has been before observed on Acts 7:23 from the Jewish writings, that Moses was forty years in Pharaoh's court, forty years in Midian, and forty years in the wilderness.

PETT, "‘This man led them forth, having wrought wonders and signs in Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years.’

And this Moses had revealed himself as ruler and deliverer in performing many signs and wonders both before and after the great deliverance. (The hint was that the One Who had come among them with signs and wonders, both before and after His death, wonders which even they had had to acknowledge, was the greater Moses. It was something that they could hardly fail to recognise).

ELLICOTT, "(36) After that he had shewed wonders and signs.—The two nouns are joined together, as in Deuteronomy 6:22, Matthew 24:24. The words express different relations, it may be, of the same phenomena, rather than phenomena specifically different;—the first emphasising the wonder which the miracle produces, and therefore answering more strictly to that word; the latter, the fact that the miracle is a token or evidence of something beyond itself. (See also Acts 2:22; Acts 6:8.)

In the Red sea.—It may be worth while noting that the familiar name comes to us, not from the Hebrew word, which means, literally, the Weed Sea, but from the LXX. version, which Stephen, as a Hellenistic Jew, used, and which gave the word Erythræan, or red, which had been used by Greek travellers from Herodotus onward. Why the name was given is an unsolved problem. Some have referred it to the colour of the coast; some to that of the sea-weed; some to an attempt to give an etymological translation of its name as the Sea of Edom (Edom, meaning “red,” as in Genesis 25:25; Genesis 36:1); some to a supposed connection with an early settlement of Phœnicians, whose name had, with the Greeks, the same significance.

37 “This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’[h]

BARES, "Which said … - Deuteronomy 18:15, Deuteronomy 18:18. See this explained, Acts 3:22. Stephen introduced this to remind them of the promise of a Messiah; to show his faith in that promise; and “particularly” to remind them of their obligation to hear and obey him.

CLARKE, "This is that Moses, which said - A prophet, etc. - This very Moses, so highly esteemed and honored by God, announced that very prophet whom ye have lately put to death. See the observations at Deuteronomy 18:22; (note).

GILL, "This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel,.... What is recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15.

a prophet, &c. See Gill on Acts 3:22.

HERY, "V. His prophecy of Christ and his grace, Acts 7:37. He not only was a type of Christ (many were so that perhaps had not an actual foresight of his day), but Moses spoke of him (Acts 7:37): This is that Moses who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren. This is spoken of as one of the greatest honours God put upon him (nay, as that which exceeded all the rest), that by him he gave notice to the children of Israel of the great prophet that should come into the world, raised their expectation of him, and required them to receive him. When his bringing them out of Egypt is spoken of it is with an emphasis of honour, This is that Moses, Exodus 6:26. And so it is here, This is that Moses. ow this is very full to Stephen's purpose in asserting that Jesus should change the customs of the ceremonial law, he was so far from blaspheming Moses that really he did him the greatest honour imaginable, by showing how the prophecy of Moses was accomplished, which was so clear, that, as Christ told them himself, If they had believed Moses, they would have believed him, John 5:46. 1. Moses, in God's name, told them that, in the fulness of time, they should have a prophet raised up among them, one of their own nation, that should be like unto him (Deuteronomy 18:15,18),-- a ruler and a deliverer, a judge and a lawgiver, like him,--who should therefore have authority to change the customs that he had delivered, and to bring in a better hope, as the Mediator of a better testament. 2. He charged them to hear that prophet, to receive his dictates, to admit the change he would make in their customs, and to submit to him in every thing "and this will be the greatest honour you can do to Moses and to his law, who said, Hear you him and came to be a witness to the repetition of this charge by a voice from heaven, at the transfiguration of Christ, and by his silence gave consent to it," Matthew 17:5.

CALVI, "37.A Prophet shall God raise up. Stephen endeavoreth undoubtedly to prove by these words that Christ is the end of the law; although he doth not express the same in plain words. And assuredly, (as we have already said,) Luke reciteth not word for word all those things which Stephen uttered; but it is sufficient for him to note the principal points of matters. Furthermore, we have said before in the third chapter, that this testimony is so applied to Christ, that notwithstanding it agreeth to the other prophets also. For after that Moses had forbidden the people to be carried to and fro with the wicked superstitions of the Gentiles, he showeth what ought to follow. There is no cause (saith he) why thou shouldst desire magicians and enchanters; for God will never suffer thee to want prophets to teach thee faithfully. And now it is certain that the ministry of the prophets was temporal, as was also the ministry of the law; until Christ should bring the full perfection of wisdom into the world. Therefore Stephen’s speech tendeth to this end, that Moses doth not keep the people fast bound to himself alone when as he setteth before them and commendeth unto them another teacher. The prophets were indeed, interpreters of the law and all their doctrine was, as it were, an addition or appurtenance (438) of those things which were uttered by Moses; but forasmuch as this was also certain, that Christ should bring a more perfect kind of doctrine, because he should make an end of all the prophecies, it followeth, that he is made the chief; and that the principal mastership (that I may so call it) is his, lest the faith of the gospel should be doubtful. ow we know to what end Stephen intermingled Moses’ testimony, to wit,

that he may prove that the Jews did no less contemn him, (of whom they made boast with open mouth to be their only teachers) even now when he is dead, than they did in times past, whilst he lived, wickedly and frowardly reject him. For whosoever believeth Moses, he will not refuse to be the disciple of Christ, whose messenger and crier he was, (John 5:46.) For the rest (439) out of the third chapter.

BARCLAY, "A DISOBEDIET PEOPLE (Acts 7:37-53)The speech of Stephen begins to accelerate. All the time by implication it has been condemning the attitude of the Jews; now that implicit condemnation becomes explicit. In this closing section of his defence Stephen has woven together several strands of thought.

(i) He insists on the continued disobedience of the people. In the days of Moses they rebelled by making the golden calf. In the time of Amos their hearts went after Moloch and the star gods. What is referred to as the Book of the Prophets is what we call the Minor Prophets. The quotation is actually from Amos 5:27 but Stephen quotes not from the Hebrew version but the Greek.

(ii) He insists that they have had the most amazing privileges. They have had the succession of the prophets; the tent of witness, so called because the tables of the Law were laid up and kept in it; the Law which was given by angels.

These two things are to be put side by side--continuous disobedience and continuous privilege. The more privileges a man has the greater his condemnation if he takes the wrong way. Stephen is insisting that the condemnation of the Jewish nation is complete because in spite of the fact that they had every chance to know better they continuously rebelled against God.

(iii) He insists that they have wrongly limited God. The Temple which should have become their greatest blessing was in fact their greatest curse; they had come to worship it instead of worshipping God. They had finished up with a Jewish God who lived in Jerusalem rather than a God of all men whose dwelling was the whole universe.

(iv) He insists that they have consistently persecuted the prophets; and--the crowning charge--that they have murdered the Son of God. And Stephen does not excuse them on the plea of ignorance as Peter did. It is not ignorance but rebellious disobedience which made them commit that crime. There is anger in Stephen's closing words, but there is sorrow too. There is the anger that sees a people commit the most terrible of crimes; and there is the sorrow that sees a people who have refused the destiny that God offered them.

BESO, "Acts 7:37-38. This is that Moses which said, A prophet, &c. — Here Stephen shows that there is no opposition between Moses and Christ. And it is mentioned as one of the greatest honours God put upon Moses; nay, as that which exceeded all the rest, that by him God gave notice to the Israelites of the great

prophet that should come into the world, raised their expectation of him, and required them to receive him on pain of utter destruction. ow this was very full to Stephen’s purpose, supposing him to have intimated, as his accusers affirmed, that Jesus should change the customs of the ceremonial law. And he is so far from blaspheming Moses, that he really does him the greatest honour imaginable, by showing how one of the most important of his prophecies was fulfilled. This is he (Moses) that was in the church in the wilderness — Presiding in all the affairs of it for forty years, and being king as well as prophet: in Jeshurun, Deuteronomy 33:5. Here we see the camp of Israel is called the church in the wilderness; and with good reason, for it was a sacred society, incorporated by a divine charter, under a divine government, and blessed with a divine revelation. It was a church, though not yet so perfectly formed as it was to be when they should come to Canaan. It was the honour of Moses that he was in that church; and many a time it would have been destroyed, if Moses had not been in it to intercede for it. But Christ is the president and guide of a more excellent and glorious church than that in the wilderness; and is more in it than Moses could be in that, as being the life and soul of it. With the angel that spake to him — The Angel of the covenant, even of the old as well as of the new. The angel that went before him and was a guide to him, otherwise he could not have been a guide to Israel. Of this God speaks, (Exodus 23:20,) I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the way, &c., beware of him, and obey his voice, for my name is in him. He was in the church with the angel, without whom he could have done no service to the church: but Christ is himself that angel which was with the church in the wilderness, and therefore has an authority above Moses. Who (Moses) received the lively oracles — ot only the ten commandments, but the other instructions, which the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak them to the children of Israel. Observe, reader, 1st, The words of God are oracles, certain and infallible, and of unquestionable authority and obligation: they are to be consulted as oracles, and by them all controversies must be determined. 2d, They are lively oracles, for they are the oracles of the living God, not of the dumb and dead idols of the heathen. They are full of divine life and energy; quick and powerful, (Hebrews 4:12,) enlightening the eyes, rejoicing the heart, converting the soul, raising the dead: for the word that God speaks is spirit and life: they were delivered in an awakening and impressive manner, and instruct us in the way to life and happiness. ot that the law of Moses could give life of itself, but it showed the way to life, especially as exhibiting, in types and shadows, good things to come. 3d, It was the principal privilege of the Jews that unto them were committed these oracles, and it was by the hand of Moses that they were committed. Moses was not the author of them, nor of the law contained in them: he was merely the medium, or instrument, of their communication. And he that gave those customs by his servant Moses, might, no doubt, when he pleased, change them by his Son Jesus, who has received more lively oracles to give unto us than Moses gave.

COSTABLE, "Stephen stressed the fact that "this" Moses was the man who had given the prophecy about the coming prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15) and had received other divine oracles for the Israelites. "This" (Gr. houtos estin) with the articular adjectival participle in Acts 7:37-38 is an intensified form of the

demonstrative pronouns translated "this" in Acts 7:35 (touton) and 36 (houtos). Stephen clearly respected Moses, but he noted that Moses himself had predicted that a prophet like himself would appear (cf. Acts 3:22). Therefore the Jews should not have concluded that the Mosaic Law was the end of God's revelation to them. The fact that Stephen spoke of the Mosaic Law as "living oracles" suggests that he viewed it more in its revelatory than in its regulatory aspect. [ote: See Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 61.]

". . . preaching Christ was not disloyalty to an ancient tradition, but its fulfilment. This was powerful argument, and a continuation of Peter's theme (iii. 22, 23). (This truth was to be more fully developed for similar minds in the Epistle to the Hebrews; see iii. 1-6, ix. 18-20, xii. 24).)" [ote: Blaiklock, p. 76.]Jesus had spent a time of temptation in the wilderness (40 days), and had heard God speaking audibly from heaven at His baptism. He too had rubbed shoulders with Israel's leaders and had received revelations from God for His people.

PETT, "‘This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel, “A prophet shall God raise up to you from among your brethren, like to me.” ’

Stephen then makes clear the parallel between Moses and Jesus by citing Deuteronomy 18:15 (compare Acts 3:22-23). All that he has been saying has had in mind not only Moses, but the coming Prophet like Moses. Many of them believed in the coming Prophet (see John 1:21), and were even looking for his coming. Let them therefore draw the parallels. The coming of the Prophet like Moses is also mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Samaritans as well looked forward to a restored Moses. It was a common expectation.

Furthermore this could be seen as an indication that when such a Prophet who was ‘like Moses’ came, different aspects of the Law would be expanded as He took up the Law of Moses and applied it.

ELLICOTT, "(37) A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up.—The parallelism previously suggested is now distinctly proclaimed, and shown to be a fulfilment of the prediction of Deuteronomy 18:18. The prediction itself is cited freely, as before. (See ote on Acts 3:22.) The definite application of the words by St. Peter determined their bearing here. At this point we may reasonably think of the members of the Sanhedrin as catching the drift of his discourse, and showing signs of excitement, the effect of which is, perhaps, traceable in the greater compression of the narrative that follows.

38 He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with

the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us.

BARES, "In the church - The word “church” means literally “the people called out,” and is applied with great propriety to the assembly or multitude called out of Egypt, and separated from the world. It has not, however, of necessity our idea of a church, but means the “assembly,” or people called out of Egypt and placed under the conduct of Moses.

With the angel - In this place there is undoubted reference to the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. Yet that was done by God himself, Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2. The essential idea is, that God did it by a messenger, or by mediators. The “character” and “rank” of the messengers, or of the “principal” messenger, must be learned by looking at all the circumstances of the case.

The lively oracles - See Romans 3:2. The word “oracles” here means “commands” or “laws” of God. The word “lively,” or “living” ζῶντα zōntastands in opposition to what is dead, or useless, and means what is vigorous, efficacious; and in this place it means that the commands were of such a nature, and given in such circumstances, as to secure attention; to produce obedience; to excite them to act for God - in opposition to laws which would fall powerless, and produce no effect.

CLARKE, "With the angel which spake to him - Stephen shows that Moses received the law by the ministry of angels; and that he was only a mediator between the angel of God and them.

The lively oracles - Λογια ζωντα, The living oracles. The doctrines of life, those doctrines - obedience to which entitled them, by the promise of God, to a long life upon earth, which spoke to them of that spiritual life which every true believer has in union with his God, and promised that eternal life which those who are faithful unto death shall enjoy with him in the realms of glory.

The Greek word λογιον, which we translate oracle, signifies a Divine revelation, a communication from God himself, and is here applied to the Mosaic law; to the Old Testament in general, Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; and to Divine revelation in general, 1 Peter 4:11.

GILL, "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness,.... Which must be understood of the children of Israel, who were the then church of God, whom he had chosen and separated from the rest of the world, to be a peculiar people to himself, to whom were given the word and ordinances, the service of God, and the promises; and God always had, and will have a church, though that is sometimes in

the wilderness; which has been the case under the Gospel dispensation, as well as before; Revelation 12:6 and it was a peculiar honour to Moses, that he was in this church, though it was in the wilderness; even a greater honour than to be in Pharaoh's court. This has a particular respect to the time when all Israel were encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai, when Moses was not only in the midst of them, and at the head of them; but was

with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina: this is the same angel as before, in Acts 7:30 and refers either to his speaking to him then, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, &c. which was at Mount Sinai; or rather to the time when the law was given on that mount; and it may be to both; it is true of each, though it, may more especially regard the latter; for it was the angel of the divine presence, the second person in the Trinity, the word of God, that bid Moses come up into the mount; and who spake all the ten words to him; and who is described in so grand and august a manner in Deuteronomy 33:2

and with our fathers; the Jewish ancestors, who came out of Egypt under Moses, with whom he was as their deliverer and ruler, their guide and governor:

who received the lively oracles to give unto us; he received from the angel which spake to him the law, to deliver to the children of Israel; which is called "the oracles", because it came from God, and contained his mind and will, and was a sure and infallible declaration of it; and "lively" ones, because delivered "viva voce", with an articulate voice, and in audible sounds, and because it is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions render it, "the words of life": not that the law gives life, or points out the way of life and salvation to sinful men; it is to them all the reverse; it is the killing letter, and the ministration of condemnation and death: it is indeed a rule of life, or of walk and conversation to men, and it promises life in case of perfect obedience, Leviticus 18:5 but this is impracticable by fallen men, and therefore there is no life nor righteousness by the law. Though these lively oracles may be considered in a larger extent, as including all the promises of God respecting the Messiah, delivered to Moses, and all the rites and ordinances of the ceremonial law, which pointed out Christ, as the way of life, righteousness, and salvation, from whence they may very well take this name.

HERY, "VI. The eminent services which Moses continued to do to the people of Israel, after he had been instrumental to bring them out of Egypt, Acts 7:38. And herein also he was a type of Christ, who yet so far exceeds him that it is no blasphemy to say, "He has authority to change the customs that Moses delivered." It was the honour of Moses, 1. That he was in the church in the wilderness he presided in all the affairs of it for forty years, was king in Jeshurun, Deuteronomy 33:5. The camp of Israel is here called the church in the wilderness for it was a sacred society, incorporated by a divine charter under a divine government, and blessed with divine revelation. The church in the wilderness was a church, though it was not yet perfectly formed, as it was to be when they came to Canaan, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes, Deuteronomy 12:8,9. It was the honour of Moses

that he was in that church, and many a time it had been destroyed if Moses had not been in it to intercede for it. But Christ is the president and guide of a more excellent and glorious church than that in the wilderness was, and is more in it, as the life and soul of it, than Moses could be in that. 2. That he was with the angel that spoke to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers--was with him in the holy mount twice forty days, with the angel of the covenant, Michael, our prince. Moses was immediately conversant with God, but never lay in his bosom as Christ did from eternity. Or these words may be taken thus: Moses was in the church in the wilderness, but it was with the angel that spoke to him in mount Sinai, that is, at the burning bush for that was said to be at mount Sinai (Acts 7:30) that angel went before him, and was guide to him, else he could not have been a guide to Israel of this God speaks (Exodus 23:20), I send an angel before thee, and Exodus 33:2. And see umbers 20:16. He was in the church with the angel, without whom he could have done no service to the church but Christ is himself that angel which was with the church in the wilderness, and therefore has an authority above Moses. 3. That he received the lively oracles to give unto them not only the ten commandments, but the other instructions which the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak them to the children of Israel. (1.) The words of God are oracles, certain and infallible, and of unquestionable authority and obligation they are to be consulted as oracles, and by them all controversies must be determined. (2.) They are lively oracles, for they are the oracles of the living God, not of the dumb and dead idols of the heathens: the word that God speaks is spirit and life not that the law of Moses could give life, but it showed the way to life: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (3.) Moses received them from God, and delivered nothing as an oracle to the people but what he had first received from God. (4.) The lively oracles which he received from God he faithfully gave to the people, to be observed and preserved. It was the principal privilege of the Jews that to them were committed the oracles of God and it was by the hand of Moses that they were committed. As Moses gave them not that bread, so neither did he give them that law from heaven (John 6:32), but God gave it to them and he that gave them those customs by his servant Moses might, no doubt, when he pleased, change the customs by his Son Jesus, who received more lively oracles to give unto us than Moses did.

CALVI, "38.Stephen proceedeth to set forth the frowardness (440) of the people, who though they were provoked [stirred up] with so many benefits of God, yet did they never cease maliciously to reject him. If they had been disobedient and unthankful to God before, yet this so wonderful a deliverance ought to have brought them into a better mind; but he declareth that they were always like themselves. It was meet that so many miracles should not only have stuck fast in their minds, but also have continued still before their eyes. But having forgotten all, they fly back suddenly unto the superstitions of Egypt. The memorial of their cruel servitude was yet fresh, which they had escaped by passing over the Red Sea; and yet they prefer those tyrants by whom they were more than cruelly handled, before their deliverer, This was, therefore, a heap of ungodliness most desperate, that their stubbornness could not be broken or overcome with so many benefits of God, but that they did always return unto their nature. This doth greatly augment the greatness of the offense, where Stephen saith that Moses was then with them in the wilderness. For

besides that there appeareth here rare goodness and long-sufferance of the Lord, in bearing with them, they make themselves to be without all excuse, whilst that being beset on every side with so many straits, being brought into so great distress; having Moses to be their guide in their journey, and the faithful keeper of their life, they fall away nevertheless treacherously from God, Finally, it appeareth that they were like untamed beasts, whom God could not keep in obedience with so many bands. Therefore, inasmuch as Moses left not off to govern them even through the wilderness, under the conduct and aid of the angel, it is an easy matter to gather by this circumstance of time, how incurable and obstinate their frowardness was; as it was a point of monstrous rebellion, not to be humbled with miseries, (441) and even with the very sight of death.

Whereas he saith, that Moses was with the angel and the fathers, there is a contrary respect. (442) He was present with the fathers, that he might be their guide according to the commandment of the Lord; he was with the angel as a minister. Whereupon it followeth that he was no private person to whom this injury was done, but it was done to the governance of God, when the people could be kept back, with the reverence of neither, from running headlong into wicked rebellion. We have already spoken of the angel. But the participle [ λαλουντος ] or which spake, hath a double meaning. For it may be understood either of the first vision, whereby Moses was called to redeem the people, or of that speech which God had with Moses, after they were come over the Red Sea. And because Christ declared both ways, that he was the author of their deliverance, it is no great matter whether we choose; yea, there is no let but that it may be extended unto both. For he which began to speak to Moses from the beginning, that he might send him into Egypt, did continue the tenor of his speech afterward, until the work was finished.

Which received lively oracles. Erasmus translated it lively speech; but those which are expert in the Greek tongue, they shall know that I have more truly translated the words of Stephen. For there is greater majesty in Oracles than in Speech, I speak only of the word; for I know that whatsoever proceedeth out of the mouth of God, the same is an oracle. Moreover, he purchaseth authority for the doctrine of Moses in these words, because he uttereth nothing but that which proceeded from God, Whereupon it followeth, that they did not so much rebel against Moses as against God; whereby their stubbornness (443) is more discovered, And this is a general way to establish doctrine, when men teach nothing but that which is commanded them by God. For what man dare make Moses inferior to him, who (as the Spirit affirmeth) ought only to be believed for this cause, because he faithfully unfolded and delivered the doctrine which he had received of God? But some men may ask this question, Why he called the law a living speech? For this title seemeth to disagree much with the words of Paul, where he saith that the law is the ministry of death, and that it worketh death, and that it is the strength of sin, (1 Corinthians 3:7.) If you take lively speech for that which is effectual, and cannot be made frustrate by the contempt of men, there shall be no contrariety; but I interpret it as spoken actively, for that which maketh to live. (444) For seeing that the law is the perfect rule of godly and holy life, and it showeth the righteousness of God, it is counted, for good causes, the doctrine of life and salvation. And to this purpose

serveth that solemn protestation of Moses, when he calleth heaven and earth to witness, that he hath set before them the way of death and life. In which sense the Lord himself complaineth, that his good law is broken, and his good commandments, whereof he had said, “He which shall do these things shall live in them,” (Ezekiel 20:0) Therefore the law hath life in itself. Yet if any man had liefer take living for that which is full of efficacy and strength, I will not greatly stand in contention.

And whereas it is called the ministry of death, that is accidental to it, because of the corrupt nature of man; for it doth not engender sin, but it findeth it in us. It offered life, but we, which are altogether corrupt, can have nothing but death by it. Therefore, it is deadly in respect of men alone. Though Stephen had respect unto a farther thing in this place; for he doth not only speak of the bare commandments, but comprehendeth all Moses’ doctrine, wherein the free promises are included, and so consequently, Christ himself, who is the only life and health of men. We must remember with what men Stephen had to do. They were such as were preposterously zealous of the law, who stayed only in the dead and deadly letter of the law; and, in the mean season, they raged against Stephen, because he sought Christ in the law, who is, indeed, the soul thereof. Therefore, by touching their perverse ignorance glancingly, he giveth them to understand that there is some greater and some more excellent thing hidden in the law than they have hitherto known. For as they were carnal, and content with an outward show, they sought no spiritual thing in it, yea, they would not so much as suffer the same to be showed them.

That he might give them to us. This serveth to refute the false accusation wherewith he was falsely burthened. For seeing he submitteth his neck to the yoke of the law, and professeth that he is one of Moses’ scholars, he is far from discrediting him amongst others. Yea, rather he turneth back the fault which was laid to his charge upon those which were the authors of the slander. That was, as it were, a common reproach for all the people, because the fathers would not obey the law. And therewithal he telleth them that Moses was appointed to be a prophet, not only for his time, but that his authority might be in force with the posterity, even when he was dead. For it is not meet that the doctrine of God should be extinguished together with ministers, or that it should be taken away. For what is more unlikely (445) than that that should die whereby we have immortality? So must we think at this day. As the prophets and apostles spake unto the men of their time, so did they write unto us, and (that) the force of their doctrine is continual, because it hath rather God to be the author thereof than men. In the mean season, he teacheth that if any reject the word appointed for them, they reject the counsel of God.

COFFMA, "The church in the wilderness ... This is not a reference to the church of Christ, but to the congregation of Israel in the wilderness which is typical of Christ's church. They had been baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:2); and their testing during the wilderness wanderings was typical of the testing of Christians during their present probation.

Bruce discerned this implication of Stephen's words here:

There in the wilderness Moses was guide to the people; there they were constituted the [@ekklesia] of God; there they had the angel of the Presence in their midst; there they received the living oracles of God. What more could the people want? ... and it was all theirs in the wilderness, far from the promised land and the holy city.[14]The living oracles ... This designation of the word of God also appears in Romans 3:2; Hebrews 3:12, and 1 Peter 4:11. It means "the living word."

EDOTE:

[14] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 152.

COKE, "Acts 7:38. This is he, that was in the church— When this clause is quoted, as it has been by some great men, to prove that Christ was the person who brought Israel out of Egypt, gave them the law, conducted them through the wilderness, &c. (which is undoubtedlymost true)the argument drawn from this passage is certainly inconclusive: for he— ουτος — here evidently answers to the word ουτος, Acts 7:36 and to the words ουτος ο ΄ωυσης, Acts 7:27 and the following clause, which expresses his being with the angel, plainly proves that angel to be a different person. The doctrine itself, that Christ was the God of Israel, the angel or messenger who appeared to Moses, is a great and certain truth, capable of being evinced from many passages both of the Old and ew Testament; and from the passage before us in particular, though not from the clause. The word εκκλησια, rendered church, would more properly be rendered here assembly, as it is Acts 19:41 because it refers not to their being incorporated into one church, in the appropriate sense of that word, but to their being assembled round the mountain on the solemn day, when the law was given. See Exodus 19:17; Exodus 19:25.

PETT, "‘This is he who was in the congregation (church) in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us. To whom our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt,’

‘This is he --’. That is, Moses. He was with them and with God (the angel) in the wilderness where he received the ‘living oracles’ from God at Mount Sinai, the mount of true revelation. There could be no higher testimonial to Moses than that. And they were intended to be for the blessing of Israel. But the people had thrust Moses away and had not been obedient to the Angel and His message, just as Jesus had come bringing living oracles and they had refused to listen to Him.

‘Living oracles.’ Words which give life. They were indeed to be Israel's very life (Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Deuteronomy 32:46-47). By walking in obedience to the law, and fulfilling its ordinances, they would enjoy length of life and be able to live

their earthly lives to their fullest extent, enjoying the presence of God with them all the way.

‘The congregation (church - ekklesia) in the wilderness.’ The phrase was well known from the Old Testament signifying Israel as a whole, but Luke’s readers would relate it to the idea of the church.

‘Turned back in their hearts to Egypt.’ But their response to receiving the living oracles of God was to turn from them because their hearts were possessed by Egypt.

ELLICOTT, "(38) That was in the church in the wilderness.—The word ecclesia is used, as it had been in the LXX. (Deuteronomy 18:16; Deuteronomy 23:1; Psalms 26:12), for the “congregation” of Israel. Of the earlier versions. Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan, had given “congregation.” Even the Rhemish contented itself with “assembly.” The translators of 1611, acting on the instructions which were drawn up for their direction, did not see any reason for making this an exception to the rule, and so gave “church.” Assuming that ecclesia was so rendered elsewhere, it was, it may be admitted, right, as a matter of consistency, that it should be used here, as presenting the thought, which was emphasised in Stephen’s speech, that the society of believers in Christ was like, in character and in its relation to God, to that of Israel. The new ecclesia was the development of the old. (See ote on Matthew 16:18.)

The lively oracles.—The noun was used by the Greeks for the solemn utterances of the Pythian oracles, and thus came to be used by the LXX. in connection with the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (Exodus 28:30), and so for any answer from God (umbers 24:4). In the ew Testament it appears again in Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11.

39 “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.

BARES, "Would not obey … - This refers to what they said of him when he was in the mount, Exodus 32:1, Exodus 32:23.

In their hearts turned … - They wished to return to Egypt. They regretted that they had come out of Egypt, and desired again the things which they had there, as preferable to what they had in the desert, umbers 11:5. Perhaps, however, the expression means, not that they desired literally to “return” to Egypt, but that “their hearts inclined to the habits and morals of the Egyptians.” They forsook God, and imitated the idolatries of the Egyptians.

CLARKE, "In their hearts turned back again into Egypt - Became idolaters, and preferred their Egyptian bondage and their idolatry to the promised land and the pure worship of God. See the whole of these transactions explained at large in the notes on Exodus 32:1-35 (note).

GILL, "To whom our fathers would not obey,.... But often murmured against him, and were disobedient to him, and to the oracles he delivered to them, and so to God, whose oracles they were:

but thrust him from them; as one of the two Hebrews did, when he interposed to make up the difference between them; and which was an emblem and presage of what that people would afterwards do; Acts 7:27

and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt; they wished themselves there again, they lusted after the fish, the cucumbers, the melons, leeks, onions, and garlic there; and went so far as to move for a captain, and even to appoint one to lead them back thither again.

HERY, "VII. The contempt that was, after this, and notwithstanding this, put upon him by the people. Those that charged Stephen with speaking against Moses would do well to answer what their own ancestors had done, and they tread in their ancestors' steps. 1. They would not obey him, but thrust him from them, Acts 7:39. They murmured at him, mutinied against him, refused to obey his orders, and sometimes were ready to stone him. Moses did indeed give them an excellent law, but by this it appeared that it could not make the comers there unto perfect (Hebrews 10:1), for in their hearts they turned back again into Egypt, and preferred their garlic and onions there before the manna they had under the guidance of Moses, or the milk and honey they hoped for in Canaan. Observe, Their secret disaffection to Moses, with their inclination to Egyptianism, if I may so call it. This was, in effect, turning back to Egypt it was doing it in heart. Many that pretend to be going forward towards Canaan, by keeping up a show and profession of religion, are, at the same time, in their hearts turning back to Egypt, like Lot's wife to Sodom, and will be dealt with as deserters, for it is the heart that God looks at. ow, if the customs that Moses delivered to them could not prevail to change them, wonder not that Christ comes to change the customs, and to introduce a more spiritual way of worship. 2. They made a golden calf instead of him, which besides the affront that was thereby offered to God, was a great indignity to Moses: for it was upon this consideration that they made the calf, because "as for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him therefore make us gods of gold " as if a calf were sufficient to supply the want of Moses, and

as capable of going before them into the promised land. So they made a calf in those days when the law was given them, and offered sacrifices unto the idol, and rejoiced in the work of their own hands. So proud were they of their new god that when they had sat down to eat and drink, they rose up to play! By all this it appears that there was a great deal which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh it was therefore necessary that this law should be perfected by a better hand, and he was no blasphemer against Moses who said that Christ had done it.

CALVI, "39.They refused, and were turned away. He saith that the fathers rejected Moses; and he showeth the cause also, because they gave themselves rather unto the superstitions of Egypt; which was horrible, and more than blind fury, to desire the customs and ordinances of Egypt, where they had suffered such grievous things of late. He saith that they were turned away into Egypt in their hearts; not that they desired to return thither, (bodily,) but because they returned in mind unto those corruptions, which they ought not so much as to have remembered without great detestation and hatred. It is true, indeed, that the Jews did once speak of returning; but Stephen toucheth not that history now. Furthermore, he doth rather express their stubbornness, when he saith that they were turned away. For after that they had taken the right way, having God for their guide and governor, they start aside suddenly, as if a stubborn unbroken horse, not obeying his rider, should frowardly run backward.

BESO, "Acts 7:39-41. Whom our fathers would not obey — Even after all the proofs of his miraculous powers given in Egypt, and at the Red sea; but thrust him from them — Acting a part more stupid and ungrateful than that before mentioned, Acts 7:27; rejecting him a second time, as in contempt of all these wonderful appearances of God by him; and in their hearts — In their affections and intentions; turning back again into Egypt — Preferring their garlick and onions there, before the manna they daily received under the conduct of Moses, and the milk and honey they hoped for in Canaan. They murmured at him, mutinied against him, refused to obey his orders, and sometimes were ready to stone him. Saying unto Aaron — At the very foot of that mountain upon which God had visibly manifested himself to them, while the sound of his voice was, as it were, yet in their ears, and though, but a few days before, they had seen their great leader ascending up to him, by an intimacy of approach allowed to no other mortal: make us gods to go before us — Back into Egypt, or forward to the promised land, and to conduct us in the way thither: for as for this Moses, who, indeed, brought us out of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him — And have not patience to wait for him any longer: therefore make us gods of gold — As if gods of Aaron’s making, though of gold, would be sufficient to supply the place of Moses, or rather, of Jehovah! And they made a calf — In imitation of the Egyptian Apis, to be their saviour and their guide; in those days — Those very days in which they continued encamped in that remarkable situation; and offered sacrifice unto the senseless and dead idol —Which could neither see nor hear, nor take any notice of the worship offered to it; and rejoiced in the work of their own hands — In the god they had made, as if,

instead of being a reproach and abomination, it had been an ornament and defence to them. ay, so proud were they of their new god, that, after they had sat down to eat and drink, they rose up to play (Exodus 32:6) before it, and in honour of it.

40 They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’[i]

BARES, "Saying unto Aaron - Exodus 32:1.

Make us gods - That is, idols.

GILL, "Saying unto Aaron, make us gods to go before us,.... This is a proof of their disobedience to the law of Moses, and of their rejection of him, and of the inclination of their hearts to the idolatry of the Egyptians; which shows the gross stupidity, as well as ingratitude of this people, to think that gods could be made; and that those that are made could go before them, be guides unto them, and protectors of them; when they have eyes, but see not, and hands, but handle not, and feet, but walk not:

for as for this Moses; whom they speak of with great contempt, and in a very irreverent way:

which brought us out of the land of Egypt; which they mention not with gratitude, but as reflecting upon him for doing it:

we wot not what is become of him; they thought he was dead, according to the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 32:1 they concluded he was consumed with fire on the mount which flamed with fire.F2 The following story is told by the Jews;

"when Moses went up on high, he said to the Israelites, at the end of forty days, at the beginning of the sixth hour I will come; at the end of forty days came Satan, and disturbed the world; he said to them, where is Moses your master? they answered him, he is gone up on high: he said to them, the sixth hour is come; they took no notice of him; he is dead (says he); they had no regard to him; he showed them the likeness of his bier; then they said to Aaron, "as for this man Moses", &c.'

CALVI, "40.Make us. Though the Jews be turned back divers ways, yet Stephen maketh choice of one notable example above all the rest, of their filthy and detestable treachery, to wit, when they made themselves a calf, that they might worship it instead of God. For there can no more filthy thing be invented (446) than this their unthankfulness. They confess that they were delivered out of Egypt; neither do they deny that this was done by the grace of God and the ministry of Moses; yet, notwithstanding, they reject the author of so great goodness, together with the minister. And under what color? They pretend they cannot tell what is become of Moses. But they know full well that he is in the mount. They saw him with their eyes when he went up thither, until such time as the Lord took him unto himself, by compassing him about with a cloud. Again, they know that Moses is absent for their health’s sake, who had promised that he would return, and bring unto them the law which God should give. He bade them only be quiet a while. They raise mad uproars suddenly within a small time, and without any cause; yet to the end they may cover their madness with the color of some reason, they will have gods present with them, as if God had showed unto them no token of his presence hitherto; but his glory did appear daily in the cloud and pillar of fire. Therefore we see what haste they make to commit idolatry through wicked contempt of God, that I may, in the mean season, omit to declare how filthy and wicked their unthankfulness was, in that they had so soon forgotten those miracles which they ought to have remembered even until the end of the world. Therefore, by this one backsliding, it appeareth sufficiently what a stubborn and rebellious people they were.

Moreover, it was more expedient for the cause which Stephen had in hand, to recite this history of their rebellion than the other. (447) For the people doth quite overthrow the worship of God; they refuse the doctrine of the law; they bring in a strange and profane religion. And this is a notable place, because it pointeth out the fountain from which all manner of superstitions did flow since the beginning, and especially what was the first beginning of making idols; to wit, because man, which is carnal, will, notwithstanding, have God present with him, according to the capacity of his flesh. This is the cause why men were so bold in all ages to make idols. (448) And God doth, indeed, apply (449) himself to our rudeness thus far, that he showeth himself visible, after a sort, under figures; for there were many signs under the law to testify his presence, And he cometh down unto us, even at this day, by baptism and the supper, and also by the external preaching of the word. But men offend two manner of ways in this; for, first, being not content with the means which God hath appointed, they boldly get to themselves new means. This is no small fault, because their fingers itch always to have new inventions without keeping any mean, and so they are not afraid to pass the bounds which God hath appointed them. But there can be no true image of God, save that which he appointed. Therefore, what images soever are reigned and invented by man besides his word, they are false and corrupt.

There is also another vice no less intolerable, that as man’s mind conceiveth nothing of God but that which is gross and earthly, so it translateth all tokens of God’s

presence unto the same grossness. either doth man delight in those idols only which he himself hath made, but also doth corrupt whatsoever God hath ordained, by wresting it unto a contrary end. God cometh down unto us, indeed, as I have already said, but to this end, that he may lift us up into heaven with him. But we, because we are wholly set upon the earth, will, in like sort, have him in the earth. By this means is his heavenly glory deformed, and that fulfilled altogether which the Israelites say here, Make us gods. For whosoever he be that doth not worship God spiritually, he maketh unto himself a new god; and yet if ye thoroughly weigh all things, the Israelites will not have a god made of set purpose by them, but they think rather that they have the true and eternal God under the shape of the golden calf. For they are ready to offer the appointed sacrifice, and they approve that with their consent which Aaron saith, that those are the gods by whom they were brought out of Egypt. But God pusseth not for those frivolous imaginations; but he complaineth that men put strange gods in his place, so soon as they depart even a very little from his word.

COKE, "Acts 7:40. For as for this Moses—we wot not, &c.— We know not. This is the phraseology both of the LXX and of the Hebrew; (Exodus 32:1.) and has been called putting the nominative case absolute; accordingly Daniel 12:2 may be thus explained: As to the multitude who sleep in the dust of the earth, they shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. So Daniel's words would appear to be a prophesy of the general resurrection of mankind, which does not fully appear in our common English translation. Many other texts might be explained, by observing that this phraseology is used. Both Beza and Grotius have represented it as a Hebraism; but Raphelius has shewn that it was made use of by the best Greek writers. The plain inference from all this was, "You are not the first who have rejected the laws which came from God, but evidently approve yourselves the children of your wicked forefathers."

PETT, "‘Saying to Aaron, “Make us gods who will go before us, for as for this Moses, who led us forth out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what is become of him.” ’

Rather than responding to the living oracles they chose that Aaron should make them dead replacement gods, for they did not know where Moses had gone. Even at the very mountain of God they had turned to idolatry and the worship of a molten image, and had spurned their deliverer. They had refused the words of Moses and thrust him away.

Let the court consider therefore how these very people of God from whom they were descended had been blasphemers against God, and had spurned the Law of Moses. ‘ot knowing what had become of him’ was similar to what Jesus had said people would say once He had been crucified (John 7:34-36).

41 That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made.

BARES, "And they made a calf - This was made of the ear-rings and ornaments which they had brought from Egypt, Exodus 32:2-4. Stephen introduces this to remind them how prone the nation had been to reject God, and to walk in the ways of sin.

GILL, "And they made a calf in those days,.... Whilst Moses was in the mount; this was done in imitation of the Egyptian idol Apis or Serapis, which was an ox or a bullock; and it was made of the golden earnings of the people, which were melted down, and cast into the form of a calf, and graved by Aaron with a graving tool, Exodus 32:2 And so the Syriac version here reads in the singular number, "and he made them a calf"; this was a most shameful and scandalous piece of idolatry. The Jews themselves are so sensible of the horribleness of it, and of the guilt of it, and of the reproach that lies on them for it, that it is common for them to sayF3,

"there is not a generation, or an age, in which there is not an ounce of the sin of the calf.'

Or, as elsewhereF4 expressed,

"no punishment befalls thee, O Israel, in "which there is not an ounce of the sin of the calf".'

And offered sacrifice unto the idol; an altar was built, and proclamation made, that the next day would be the feast of the Lord; and accordingly early in the morning the people rose, and offered both burnt offerings and peace offerings, Exodus 32:5 and rejoiceth in the works of their own hands; for so the calf was; and which rejoicing they showed by eating, and drinking, and singing, and dancing.

CALVI, "41.And they made a calf. We may easily gather by that which goeth before, why they were more delighted in that figure than in any other. For although Egypt did swarm with innumerable idols, yet it is well known that they made the greatest account of an ox. And whence is it that they are so desirous to have an idol, save only because they were turned back into Egypt, as Stephen hath already said? We must note the speech when he saith that they offered sacrifice to the idol. Aaron commandeth the people to assemble themselves together to worship God; they come

all together. Therefore they testify that they mean nothing less [any thing rather] than to defraud God of his worship, howsoever they translate the same unto the calf; yea, rather, they are determined to worship God in the image of the calf. But because they forsook the true God, by making an idol, whatsoever followeth afterward it is judged to be given to the idol, because God refuseth all wicked worshipping. For it is not meet to account that as bestowed upon him which he hath not commanded; and because he forbids them expressly to erect any visible image unto him, that is mere sacrilege whatsoever is done afterward in honor thereof.

They rejoiced over the works. This speech is taken out of Isaiah, yet, out of the prophets, who, in like sort, upbraid unto the Jews that they were delighted in their own inventions. And surely it is wonderful madness, when men arrogate unto themselves anything in God’s matters. I take this rejoicing to be that solemn dancing whereof Moses speaketh, in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus. Yet Stephen toucheth a common vice, wherewith idolaters are infected. For although it be altogether unlawful for men to attempt anything in religion which God hath not appointed, yet do they invent everything unadvisedly, and setting light by the Word of God, they make choice of the works of their own hands; but Stephen showeth that while they take such pleasure in this liberty, they displease God so much the more. But if we will have God to allow our worship, we must abstain from the works of our hands, that is, from our own inventions; for all that which men invent of themselves is nothing else but sacrilegious profanation. The idol is properly so called reproachfully, as it were a thing nothing worth, because no reason doth suffer man to make God. (450)

COFFMA, "This quotation is from Amos 5:25ff and was introduced here as a further comment by Stephen upon the apostasy of Israel; and although the outright rejection of God and the widespread idolatry during the period of the monarchy came much later, Stephen's application of Amos' prophecy shows that even during the period of the wilderness wanderings they had already rejected God in their hearts. As Hervey expressed it:

What Amos means to say is that because of the treacherous, unfaithful heart of Israel, as shown by the worship of the golden calf, and all their rebellions in the wilderness, all their sacrifices were worthless.[15]Moloch ... This old god of the Ammonites "was worshipped at Mari about 1800 B.C.. and was associated with the sacrifice of children in the fire."[16] Solomon built a high place for this god on a hill east of Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7); Ahaz burned his children (2 Chronicles 28:3), and Manasseh did the same (2 Kings 21:6); and Samaria was judged for this sin (2 Kings 17:17).

Rephan ... "This is the name of a god identified or connected with the planet Saturn."[17] Adam Clarke says that "Moloch was generally understood to mean the sun";[18] thus the declaration of Stephen that God "gave them up to serve the host of heaven" was accurate.

God gave them up ... What Stephen here declared concerning Israel, Paul also declared concerning the Gentiles (Romans 1:24-28). For a somewhat extensive review of this see my Commentary on Romans, under Romans 1:25. God's giving men up is not a passive judgment, but active. It means more than merely withdrawing from men that they may walk in their own lusts and includes a punitive judgment to the effect that those given up will reap the debauchery and degeneration which are the consequences of their rebellion.

In establishing the pattern of Israel's repeated rejection of God, Stephen here brought into view the fact that not only had the ten northern tribes been lost entirely, but that even the southern remnant had been sent away into Babylon as punishment for their idolatry. See under Acts 26:7.

(iii)

[15] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 220.

[16] The ew Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 836.

[17] Ibid., p. 1083.

[18] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (ew York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 732.

COSTABLE 41-43, "The Israelites turned from Moses to idolatry, and in this their high priest, Aaron, helped them. Consequently God gave them over to what they wanted (cf. Romans 1:24). He also purposed to send them into captivity as punishment (Amos 5:25-27).

By implication, turning from the revelation that Jesus had given amounted to idolatry. Stephen implied that by rejecting Moses' coming prophet, Jesus, his hearers could expect a similar fate despite the sacrifices they brought to God.

"Stephen's quotation of Amos 5:27, 'I will carry you away beyond Babylon,' differs from the OT. Both the Hebrew text and the LXX say 'Damascus.' The prophet Amos was foretelling the exile of the northern kingdom under the Assyrians which would take them beyond Damascus. More than a century later, the southern kingdom was captured because of her similar disobedience to God and was deported to Babylon. Stephen has merely substituted this phrase in order to use this Scripture to cover the judgment of God on the entire nation." [ote: Kent, pp. 70-71.]Israel had turned from Jesus to idolatry, and her high priest had helped her do so. One of Stephen's concerns in this speech then was false worship. The Israelites rejoiced in their idolatry in the wilderness and more recently since Jesus was out of the way. God had turned from them for their apostasy in the past, and He was doing

the same in the present. They did not really offer their sacrifices to God, and He did not accept them since they had rejected His anointed Ruler and Judge. The Israelites were heading for another wilderness experience. They adopted a house of worship and an object of worship that were not God's choice but their creations. God would remove them far from their land in punishment (i.e., in A.D. 70).

Stephen had answered his accusers' charge that he had spoken against Moses (Acts 6:11; Acts 6:13) by showing that he believed what Moses had predicted about the coming prophet. It was really his hearers, like Jesus' hearers earlier, who rejected Moses since they refused to allow the possibility of prophetic revelation that superseded the Mosaic Law.

"Joseph's brethren, rejecting the beloved of their father, Moses' people, turning with scorn and cursing on the one who only sought to give them freedom-these were prototypes which the audience would not fail to refer to themselves." [ote: Blaiklock, p. 76.]

PETT, "‘And they made a calf in those days, and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands.’

The people had quite blatantly made a calf and sacrificed to their idol, and rejoiced in what their own hands had made. There is a parallel between this last statement and the statement concerning the Temple as ‘made with hands’ (Acts 7:48). They were always making things by which to worship God which were insufficient for the purpose, and that was true even of their Temple, because it was ‘made with hands’.

42 But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets:“‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offeringsforty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?

BARES, "Then God turned - That is, turned away from them; abandoned them to

their own desires.

The host of heaven - The stars, or heavenly bodies. The word “host” means “armies.” It is applied to the heavenly bodies because they are very numerous, and appear to be “marshalled” or arrayed in military order. It is from this that God is called Yahweh “of hosts,” as being the ruler of these well-arranged heavenly bodies. See the notes on Isaiah 1:9. The proof that they did this Stephen proceeds to allege by a question from the prophets.

In the book of the prophets - Amos 5:25-26. The twelve minor prophets were commonly written in one volume, and were called the Book of the Prophets; that is, the book containing these several prophecies, Daniel, Hosea, Micah, etc. They were small “tracts” separately, and were bound up together to preserve them from being lost. This passage is not quoted literally; it is evidently made from memory; and though in its main spirit it coincides with the passage in Amos, yet in some important respects it varies from it.

O ye house of Israel - Ye people of Israel.

Have ye offered … - That is, ye have not offered. The interrogative form is often an emphatic way of saying that the thing had “not” been done. But it is certain that the Jews did offer sacrifices to God in the wilderness, though it is also certain that they did not do it with a pure and upright heart. They kept up the form of worship generally, but they frequently forsook God, and offered worship to idols. through the continuous space of forty years they did “not” honor God, but often departed from him, and worshipped idols.

CLARKE, "Then God turned, and gave them up, etc. - He left them to themselves, and then they deified and worshipped the sun, moon, planets, and principal stars.

In the book of the prophets - As this quotation is found in Amos, Amos 5:25, by the book of the prophets is meant the twelve minor prophets, which, in the ancient Jewish division of the sacred writings, formed only one book.

Have ye offered to me slain beasts - It is certain that the Israelites did offer various sacrifices to God, while in the wilderness; and it is as certain that they scarcely ever did it with an upright heart. They were idolatrous, either in heart or act, in almost all their religious services; these were therefore so very imperfect that they were counted for nothing in the sight of God; for this seems to be strongly implied in the question here asked, Have ye offered to Me (exclusively and with an upright heart) slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years? On the contrary, these forty years were little else than a tissue of rebellion and idolatry.

GILL, "Then God turned,.... Away from them, withdrew his presence, and his favours from them:

and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; not angels, but the sun, moon, and

stars; for since they liked not to retain the knowledge and worship of the true God, who made the heavens, and the earth, God in righteous judgment, in a judicial way, gave them up to a reprobate mind, to commit all the idolatry of the Gentiles, as a punishment of their former sin in making and worshipping the calf:

as it is written in the book of the prophets; of the twelve lesser prophets, which were all in one book; and which, as the Jews sayF5, were put together, that a book of them might not be lost through the smallness of it; among which Amos stands, a passage in whose prophecy is here referred to; namely, in Amos 5:25 "O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness"; no; they offered to devils, and not to God, Deuteronomy 32:17 and though there were some few sacrifices offered up; yet since they were not frequently offered, nor freely, and with all the heart, and with faith, and without hypocrisy, they were looked upon by God as if they were not offered at all.

HERY, "42Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? 43Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. 44Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David 46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built him a house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? 50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

Two things we have in these verses:--

I. Stephen upbraids them with the idolatry of their fathers, which God gave them up to, as a punishment for their early forsaking him in worshipping the golden calf and this was the saddest punishment of all for that sin, as it was of the idolatry of the Gentile world that God gave them up to a reprobate mind. When Israel was joined to idols, joined to the golden calf, and not long after to Baal-peor, God said, Let them alone let them go on (Acts 7:42): Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven. He particularly cautioned them not to do it, at their peril, and gave them reasons why they should not but, when they were bent upon it, he gave them up to their own hearts lust, withdrew his restraining grace, and then they walked in their own counsels, and were so scandalously mad upon their idols as never any people were. Compare Deuteronomy 4:19; Jeremiah 8:2. For this he quotes a passage out of Amos 5:25. For it would be less invidious to tell them their own [character and doom] from an Old-Testament prophet, who upbraids them,

1. For not sacrificing to their own God in the wilderness (Acts 7:42): Have you

offered to me slain beasts, and sacrifices, by the space of forty years in the wilderness? o during all that time sacrifices to God were intermitted they did not so much as keep the passover after the second year. It was God's condescension to them that he did not insist upon it during their unsettled state but then let them consider how ill they requited him in offering sacrifices to idols, when God dispensed with their offering them to him. This is also a check to their zeal for the customs that Moses delivered to them, and their fear of having them changed by this Jesus, that immediately after they were delivered these customs were for forty years together disused as needless things.

CALVI, "Stephen will here declare that the Jews did never make an end of sinning, but that they wandered farther in their froward errors; so that that first fall of theirs was unto them as it were an entrance into a labyrinth. And this doth he assign unto the just vengeance of God, that after that time their madness grew so, that they gat for one idol infinity. This example teacheth us to be careful to follow the rule which God hath set down; because, so soon as we are turned even but a little aside from the same, we must needs be carried to and fro with divers dotings, we must needs be entangled in many superstitions, and be utterly drowned in the huge sink of errors; which punishment God in justice layeth upon men which refuse to obey his word. Therefore Stephen saith that God was turned away; which word imported as much as if he should say, that he turned his back. For he had fastened his eyes after a sort upon the people, when he showed his singular care which he took in governing them; being offended with their falling away, now he turneth his face another way.

We may also hereby gather that we can no otherwise follow the right way, save only when the Lord watcheth over us to govern us; but so soon as his face is turned away, we run by and by into errors. The Israelites were forsaken of God even then when they made the calf; but Stephen meant to express the greatness of the punishment, as if he should have said, that they were altogether cast off into a reprobate sense then; as Paul also teacheth, that those which gave not glory to God when he had showed himself unto them, were, by the just judgment of God, given up unto blindness and blockishness, and unto shameful lusts, (Romans 1:28.) Hereby it came to pass, that after that religion began to be corrupt, innumerable abominations succeeded a few superstitions, and gross monsters of idolatry came in place of light corruptions. For because men neglected the light which was set before them, they became altogether blockish by the just judgment of God, so that they had no more judgment than brute beasts. Idolatry surely is very fertile, that of one reigned god there should by and by come an hundred, that a thousand superstitions should flow from one. But this so great madness of men springeth hence, because God revengeth himself by delivering them to Satan; because, after he hath once in hand to govern us, there is no change in his part, but he is plucked away (451) from us by our rash lightness.

Have ye offered unto me slain beasts and sacrifices? This place is taken out of the fifth chapter of Amos, (Amos 5:25.) The speech which Stephen useth showeth that all the prophecies were gathered into one body; and Amos addeth, (after that he had

inveighed against the idolatry and sundry sins of the people,) that this is no new evil, that the Jews are rebellious against God, because their fathers had fallen away from true godliness even in the wilderness. Furthermore, he denieth that they offered slain beasts to him, not because there were there no sacrifices at all, but because God refused their corrupt worship; like as he reproveth and chideth the people in Isaiah, because they honored him with no sacrifice,

“Thou,” (saith he,) “O Jacob, hast not called upon me, neither hast thou honored me with thy sacrifices, neither have I made thee serve in offering or incense. Thou hast not bought for me calamus, neither hast thou filled me with fatness. But thou hast been burdenous [burdensome] unto me in thy sins, and hast caused me to serve in thine iniquities,” (Isaiah 43:22.)

Assuredly the Jews did all these things daily, but God accepteth not the obedience of the wicked, neither doth he approve the same. Again, he abhorreth all that which is polluted with such mingle-mangles as are added. (452) Thus doth Amos speak of the fathers which were revolts. (453) That which is added forthwith may be referred either unto them or unto their posterity.

BESO, "Acts 7:42-43. Then God turned — Upon this, God, being most righteously provoked, turned away from them in anger, and, as in many other instances, punished one sin by letting them fall into another; and at length gave them up, in succeeding ages, to the most abandoned, public, and general idolatry, even to worship all the host of heaven — The stars and other heavenly bodies, and that with as little reserve, and as little shame, as the most stupid of the heathen nations. As it is written in the book of the prophets — amely, of the twelve minor prophets, which the Jews always connected together in one book. What is here quoted is taken from the Prophet Amos 5:25; where see the note. The passage consists of two parts; of which the former confirms Acts 7:41, concerning the sin of the people; the latter, the beginning of Acts 7:42, respecting their punishment: O house of Israel, have ye offered to me — To me alone; slain beasts, &c., forty years in the wilderness? — You know that even then you began to revolt, and provoke me to jealousy with your abominations. They had offered many sacrifices, but did not offer them to God alone, but sacrificed to idols also; and God did not accept even those that they offered to him, because they did not offer them with an upright heart. And in succeeding ages you were continually renewing and aggravating your rebellions and treasons against me. Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch —Instead of confining yourselves to my tabernacle; and the star of your god Remphan — Or Chium, as it is called in Amos. Moloch probably meant the sun, and Remphan, or Chium, the moon; or some other star. Aben Ezra thinks Saturn; figures which ye made — Images, or emblematical representations, of these supposed deities; to worship them — Both the images, and the supposed deities which they were intended to represent. See note on Amos 5:26. I will carry you away beyond Babylon — Into countries more distant. So Dr. Prideaux reconciles Stephen’s quotation with the original passages in Amos, where we read, beyond Damascus. This was fulfilled by the king of Assyria, 2 Kings 17:6.

PETT 42-42, "‘But God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets,

“Did you offer to me slain beasts and sacrifices,Forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?And did you take up the tabernacle of Moloch?And the star of the god Rephan?The figures which you made to worship them?And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.”Thus God had turned from them and given them up to serve the host of heaven. Moses himself had warned them against serving the host of heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 17:3) but in Kings it became a regular feature of Israelite worship (2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 21:3; etc.). The host of heaven were a poor and blasphemous substitute for the God of Heaven. So once they were in the land God turned away from His people, and handed them over to other gods. (So much for the blessing of the land).

The citation is taken from Amos 5:25-27 LXX. The thought is either that they had professed to worship God for forty years in the wilderness and then had turned, once they were in the land, to the worship of Moloch and Rephan (an Assyrian god). That was how much good the land had done them! Or that the wilderness was not such a time of pure worship as present Judaism tried to make out (it was a constant theme of 1st century AD Judaism that the period in the wilderness had been the time of Israel’s purity). For the molten calf demonstrated that it was not a period of pure worship for forty years. Judaism may seek to idealise the forty years in the wilderness, but Stephen is pointing out that it was simply not a true description of that time.

They had turned from the Tabernacle of God to the tabernacle of Moloch. Moloch was the local god of the Ammonites, but was regularly worshipped in Canaan and warned against by Moses (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5). He was a god who required child sacrifice, and was thus the most to be despised. And the star out of Jacob, God’s promised deliverer (umbers 24:17) had been replaced by the star of Rephan, the god of Assyria. These were the figures that Israel had made in order to worship them. What was more blasphemous than that? Who was it now who had ‘changed the Law of Moses’ and exchanged it for idolatry?

We should note here that Stephen is quoting the Bible version that he used (the Greek Septuagint), as we might choose to use a particular version (e.g. ASV RSV TEB IV) as ‘the word of God’. It was his Bible. What matters is that the general sense is the same.

‘And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’ Stephen changes ‘Damascus’ as found in Amos to ‘Babylon’ in order to bring home the lesson that they had returned right back to what Abraham had escaped from (Acts 7:2; Acts 7:4). He saw such an

alteration as justified because Babylon epitomised all such idolatrous cities (just as when we are preaching we may turn ‘woe to you Chorazin’ to ‘woe to you ew York’). Israel had turned full circle and had been shown no longer to be God’s people.

The Hebrew text of Amos 5:25-27 reads, “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? Yes, you have borne Sikkuth your king and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves. Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus.”

The Hebrew text is not quite as far from LXX as it might seem. ‘Skkth your mlch’ is translated by LXX by interpreting the Hebrew as ‘the tabernacle (skkth) of your Moloch (mlch)’ vocalising sikkuth as sukkoth (booths). Both recognise that a false god is being spoken of. The name of the god Chiun (an Assyrian god) is simply updated or translated to Rephan (possibly an Egyptian equivalent) in LXX. Again both refer to false gods. The translation problem partly arises from the lack of vowels in the ancient Hebrew text, and probably partly in order to make the names intelligible to the readers of LXX.

ELLICOTT, "(42) The host of heaven.—The word includes the host or army of the firmament, sun, moon, and stars, as in 2 Chronicles 33:3; 2 Chronicles 33:5; Jeremiah 8:2. The sin of Israel was that it worshipped the created host, instead of Jehovah Sabaoth, the “Lord of hosts.”

In the book of the prophets.—The term is used in conformity with the Rabbinic usage which treated the Twelve Minor Prophets as making up a single book.

Have ye offered to me . . .?—Better, did ye offer . . . ? The words are, with one exception, from the LXX. of Amos 5:25-26. The narrative of the Pentateuch is inconsistent with the statement that no sacrifices were offered to Jehovah during the forty years’ wandering; but the question emphasises the thought which Amos desired to press upon the men of his generation, that Jehovah rejected the divided worship offered to them by a people who were all along hankering after, and frequently openly returning to, the worship of Egypt or Chaldæa. Moloch, and not the true God of Abraham, had been their chosen deity.

43 You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship.

Therefore I will send you into exile’[j] beyond Babylon.

BARES, "Yea, ye took up - That is, you bore, or you carried with you, for purposes of idolatrous worship.

The tabernacle - This word properly means a “tent”; but it is also applied to the small tent or house in which was contained the image of the god; the shrine, box, or tent in which the idol was placed. It is customary for idolatrous nations to bear their idols about with them, enclosed in cases or boxes of various sizes, usually very small, as their idols are commonly small. Probably they were made in the shape of small “temples” or tabernacles; and such appear to have been the “silver shrines” for Diana, made at Ephesus, Acts 19:24. These shrines, or images, were borne with them as a species of amulet, charm, or talisman to defend them from evil. Such images the Jews seem to have carried with them.

Moloch - This word comes from the Hebrew word signifying “king.” This was a god of the Ammonites, to whom human sacrifices were offered. Moses in several places forbids the Israelites, under penalty of death, to dedicate their children to Moloch, by making them pass through the fire, Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5. There is great probability that the Hebrews were addicted to the worship of this deity after they entered the land of Canaan. Solomon built a temple to Moloch on the Mount of Olives 1 Kings 11:7; and Manasseh made his son pass through the fire in honor of this idol, 2 Kings 21:3, 2 Kings 21:6. The image of this idol was made of brass, and his arms extended so as to embrace anyone; and when they offered children to him, they heated the statue, and when it was burning hot, they placed the child in his arms, where it was soon destroyed by heat. It is not certain what this god was supposed to represent. Some suppose it was in honor of the planet Saturn; others, the sun; others, Mercury, Venus, etc. What particular god it was is not material. It was the most cutting reproof that could be made to the Jews, that their fathers had been guilty of worshipping this idol.

And the star - The Hebrew in this place is, “Chiun your images, the star of your god.” The expression used here leads us to suppose that this was a star which was worshipped, but what star it is not easy to ascertain; nor is it easy to determine why it is called both “Chiun” and “Remphan.” Stephen quotes from the Septuagint translation. In that translation the word “Chiun” is rendered by the word “Raiphan,” or “Rephan,” easily changed into “Remphan.” Why the authors of that version adopted this is not known. It was probably, however, from one of two causes:

(1) Either because the word “Chiun” in Hebrew meant the same as “Remphan” in the language of Egypt, where the translation was made; or,

(2) Because the “object” of worship called “Chiun” in Hebrew was called “Remphan” in the language of Egypt. It is generally agreed that the object of their worship was the planet “Saturn,” or “Mars,” both of which planets were worshipped as gods of evil influence. In Arabic, the word “Chevan” denotes the planet Saturn. Probably “Rephan,” or “Remphan,” is the Coptic name for the same planet, and the Septuagint adopted this because that translation was made in Egypt, where the Coptic language was spoken.Figures which ye made - Images of the god which they made. See the article “Chiun” in Robinson‘s Calmet.

And I will carry you away … - This is simply expressing in few words what is stated at greater length in Amos 5:27. In Hebrew it is “Damascus”; but this evidently denotes the Eastern region, in which also Babylon was situated.

CLARKE, "Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them - This is a literal translation of the place, as it stands in the Septuagint; but in the Hebrew text it stands thus: But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Molech, and Chiun, your images, the star of your god which ye made to yourselves. This is the simple version of the place, unless we should translate מלככם סכות את ונסאתם venasatem eth Siccuth malkekem, ye took Sikuth your king, (instead of ye took up the tabernacle of your Molek), as some have done. The place is indeed very obscure, and the two texts do not tend to cast light on each other. The rabbins say siccuth, which we translate tabernacle, is the name of an idol. Molech is generally understood to mean the sun; and several persons of good judgment think that by Remphan or Raiphan is meant the planet Saturn, which the Copts call Ῥηφαν, Rephan. It will be seen above that instead of Remphan, or, as some of the best MSS. have it, Rephan, the Hebrew text has כיון Chiun, which might possibly be a corruption of ריפן Reiphan, as it would be very easy to mistake the כ caph for ר resh, and the vau shurek ו for פ pe . This emendation would bring the Hebrew, Septuagint, and the text of Luke, nearer together; but there is no authority either from MSS. or versions for this correction: however, as Chiun is mentioned in no other place, though Molech often occurs, it is the more likely that there might have been some very early mistake in the text, and that the Septuagint has preserved the true reading.

It was customary for the idolaters of all nations to carry images of their gods about them in their journeys, military expeditions, etc.; and these, being very small, were enclosed in little boxes, perhaps some of them in the shape of temples, called tabernacles; or, as we have it, Acts 19:24, shrines. These little gods were the penates and lares among the Romans, and the tselems or talismans among the ancient eastern idolaters. The Hebrew text seems to refer to these when it says, the tabernacle of your Molech, and Chiun, your images, צלמיכם tsalmeycem, your tselems, τους τυπους, the types or simulachres of your gods. See the note on Genesis 31:19. Many of those small portable images are now in my own collection, all of copper or brass; some of them the identical penates of the ancient Romans, and others the offspring of the Hindoo idolatry; they are from an ounce weight to half a pound. Such images as these I suppose the idolatrous Israelites, in imitation of their

neighbors, the Moabites, Ammonites, etc., to have carried about with them; and to such the prophet appears to me unquestionably to allude.

I will carry you away beyond Babylon - You have carried your idolatrous images about; and I will carry you into captivity, and see if the gods in whom ye have trusted can deliver you from my hands. Instead of beyond Babylon, Amos, from whom the quotation is made, says, I will carry you beyond Damascus. Where they were carried was into Assyria and Media, see 2 Kings 17:6; : now, this was not only beyond Damascus, but beyond Babylon itself; and, as Stephen knew this to be the fact, he states it here, and thus more precisely fixes the place of their captivity. The Holy Spirit, in his farther revelations, has undoubted right to extend or illustrate those which he had given before. This case frequently occurs when a former prophecy is quoted in later times.

GILL, "Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Mo,.... Sometimes called Molech, and sometimes Milcorn; it was the god of the Ammonites, and the same with Baal: the one signifies king, and the other lord; and was, no doubt, the same with the Apis or Serapis of the Egyptians, and the calf of the Israelites. Frequent mention is made of giving seed to Molech, and causing the children to pass through fire to him. The account the Jews give of this image, and of the barbarous worship of it, is thisF6:

"though all idolatrous places were in Jerusalem, Molech was without Jerusalem; and it was made an hollow image, placed within seven chancels or chapels; and whoever offered fine flour, they opened to him the first; if turtle doves or two young pigeons, they opened the second; if a lamb, they opened the third; if a ram, they opened the fourth; if a calf, they opened the fifth; if an ox, they opened the sixth; but whoever offered his son, they opened the seventh: his face was a calf's, and his hands were stretched out, as a man opens his hands to receive any thing from his friend; and they make him hot with fire, and the priests take the infant and put it into the hands of Molech, and the infant expires: and wherefore is it called Topher and Hinnom? Tophet, because they make a noise with drums, that its father may not hear the voice of the child, and have compassion on it, and return to it; and Hinnom, because the child roars, and the voice of its roaring ascends.'

Others give a milder account of this matter, and say, that the service was after this mannerF7; that

"the father delivered his son to the priests, who made two large fires, and caused the son to pass on his feet between the two fires,'

so that it was only a sort of a lustration or purification by fire; but the former account, which makes the child to be sacrificed, and put to death, seems best to agree with the scriptural one. ow this idol was included in chancels or chapels, as in the account given, or in shrines, in tabernacles, or portable temples, which might be taken up and carried; and such an one is here mentioned: by which is meant, not the tabernacle of the Lord made by Bezaleel; as if the sense was, that the idolatrous Israelites, though not openly, yet secretly, and in their hearts worshipped Mo, as if

he was included in the tabernacle; so that to take it up means no other, than in the heart to worship, and to consider him as if he had been shut up and carried in that tabernacle; nor is it to be thought that they publicly took up, and carried a tabernacle, in which was the image of Mo, during their forty years' travels in the wilderness; for whatever they might do the few days they worshipped the golden calf, which is possible, it cannot be received, that Moses, who was so severe against idolatry, would ever have connived at such a practice: this therefore must have reference to after times, when they sacrificed their children to him, and took up and carried his image in little shrines and tabernacles.

And the star of your god Remphan. The Alexandrian copy reads "Raiphan"; some copies read "Raphan"; and so the Arabic version; others "Rephan"; the Syriac version reads "Rephon"; and the Ethiopic version "Rephom". Giants, with the Hebrews, were called "Rephaim"; and so Mo, who is here meant, is called "Rephan", and with an epenthesis "Remphan", because of his gigantic form; which some have concluded from the massy crown on his head, which, with the precious stones, weighed a talent of gold, which David took from thence, 2 Samuel 12:30 for not the then reigning king of the Ammonites, but Molech, or Milchom, their idol, is meant: this is generally thought to be the same with Chiun in Amos; but it does not stand in a place to answer to that; besides, that should not be left untranslated, it not being a proper name of an idol, but signifies a type or form; and the whole may be rendered thus, "but ye have borne the tabernacle of your king, and the type, or form of your images, the star of your god"; which version agrees with Stephens's, who, from the Septuagint, adds the name of this their king, and their god Rephan, or Remphan. Drusius conjectures, that this is a fault of the Scribes writing Rephan for Cephan, or that the Septuagint interpreters mistook the letter כ for ר, and instead of Cevan read Revan; and Chiun is indeed, by Kimchi and Aben EzraF8, said to be the same with Chevan, which, in the Ishmaelitish and Persian languages, signifies Saturn; and so does Rephan in the Egyptian language: and it is further to be observed, that the Egyptians had a king called Remphis, the same with Apis; and this may be the reason why the Septuagint interpreters, who interpreted for Ptolomy, king of Egypt, put Rephan, which Stephen calls Remphan, instead of Chiun, which they were better acquainted with, since they both signify the same deity, and the same star; and which also was the star of the Israelites, called by them because supposed to have the government of the sabbath day, and therefore ,שבתאיfitly called the "star of your god". Upon the whole, Mo, Chiun, Rephan, or Remphan, and Remphis, all are the same with the Serapis of the Egyptians, and the calf of the Israelites; and which idolatry was introduced on account of Joseph, who interpreted the dream of Pharaoh's kine, and provided for the Egyptians in the years of plenty against the years of famine, and was worshipped under the ox with a bushel on his head;

figures which ye made to worship them; in Amos it is said, "which you made for yourselves": meaning both the image and the tabernacle in which it was, which they made for their own use, to worship their deity in and by:

and I will carry you beyond Babylon; in Amos it is beyond Damascus, and so some

copies read here, which was in Babylon; and explains the sense of the prophet more fully, that they should not only be carried for their idolatry beyond Damascus, and into the furthermost parts of Babylon, but beyond it, even into the cities of the Medea, Halah, and Habor, by the river Gozan; and here is no contradiction: how far beyond Damascus, the prophet does not say; and if they were carried beyond Babylon, they must be carried beyond Damascus, and so the words of the prophet were fulfilled; and Stephen living after the fulfilment of the prophecy, by which it appeared that they were carried into Media, could say how far they were carried; wherefore the JewF9 has no reason to cavil at Stephen, as if he misrepresented the words of the prophet, and related things otherwise than they were; and so Kimchi interprets it, far beyond Damascus; and particularly mentions Halah and Habor, cities in Media, where the ten tribes were carried.

HERY, "2. For sacrificing to other gods after they came to Canaan (Acts 7:43): You took up the tabernacle of Moloch. Moloch was the idol of the children of Ammon, to which they barbarously offered their own children in sacrifice, which they could not do without great terror and grief to themselves and their families yet this unnatural idolatry they arrived at, when God gave them up to worship the host of heaven. See 2 Chronicles 28:3. It was surely the strongest delusion that ever people were given up to, and the greatest instance of the power of Satan in the children of disobedience, and therefore it is here spoken of emphatically: Yea, you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, you submitted even to that, and to the worship of the star of your god Remphan. Some think Remphan signifies the moon, as Moloch does the sun others take it for Saturn, for that planet is called Remphan in the Syriac and Persian languages. The Septuagint puts it for Chiun, as being a name more commonly known. They had images representing the star, like the silver shrines for Diana, here called the figures which they made to worship. Dr. Lightfoot thinks they had figures representing the whole starry firmament, with all the constellations, and the planets, and these are called Remphan--"the high representation," like the celestial globe: a poor thing to make an idol of, and yet better than a golden calf! ow for this it is threatened, I will carry you away beyond Babylon. In Amos it is beyond Damascus, meaning to Babylon, the land of the north. But Stephen changes it, with an eye to the captivity of the ten tribes, who were carried away beyond Babylon, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, 2 Kings 17:6. Let it not therefore seem strange to them to hear of the destruction of this place, for they had heard of it many a time from the prophets of the Old Testament, who were not therefore accused as blasphemers by any but the wicked rulers. It was observed, in the debate on Jeremiah's case, that Micah was not called to an account though he prophesied, saying, Zion shall be ploughed as a field, Jeremiah 26:18,19.

CALVI, "43.You took to you the tabernacle of Moloch. Some take the copulative for the adversative [particle,] as if he should say, Yea, rather, ye worshipped the idol. It may be resolved also into the conjunction causal, thus, You did not offer sacrifices to me, because ye erected a tabernacle to Moloch. But I expound it somewhat otherwise, to wit, that God doth first accuse the fathers for the more vehemency; and then afterwards he addeth, that their posterity did increase the

superstitions, because they gat to themselves new and diverse idols; as if the prophet had spoken thus in the person of God, If I shall rip up from the beginning, (O house of Jacob,) how your kindred hath behaved itself toward me; your fathers began to overthrow and corrupt, even in the wilderness, that worship which I had commanded; but you have far passed their ungodliness, for you have brought in an infinite company of gods. And this order is fitter for Stephen’s purpose; for he intendeth to prove, (as we have already said,) that after the Israelites felt away unto strange and bastardly rites, they never made an end of sinning, but being stricken with blindness, they polluted themselves every now and then with new idolatries, until they were come even unto the last end (454) of impiety. Therefore, Stephen confirmeth this sentence fitly with the testimony of the prophet, that the Jews, descending of wicked and rebellious fathers, had never ceased to wax worse and worse. And although the prophet’s words be somewhat unlike to these, yet is the sense all one. It is to be thought that Stephen, who had to deal with the Jews, did repeat word for word in their tongue that which is in the prophet; Luke, who wrote in Greek, did follow the Greek interpreter. The prophet saith, Ye honored Succoth your king, and Chiun your image, the star of your gods. The Greek interpreter made a noun common of a noun proper, because of the alliance (455) of the word Succoth, which signifietha tabernacle. Furthermore, I cannot tell whence he fetcheth that his Remphan, unless it were because that word was more used in that time.

And figures which ye made. The word image, which is in the prophet, doth of itself signify no evil thing. Moreover, the word [ τυπος ]; is taken amongst the Grecians in good part. For the ceremonies which God appointed are called [ τυποι ]; notwithstanding the prophet condemneth expressly the figures [types] which the Jews had made. Why so? Because God will not be worshipped under a visible and external form. If any man object that he speaketh in this place of stars; that is true, I confess; but I stand only upon this, that although the prophet doth give their idols some honest name, yet doth he sharply condemn their corrupt worship; whereby the foolish and childish caviling of the Papists is refuted. Because they deny that those images which they worship are idols, they say, that that mad worship of theirs is, [ εικονοδουλεια ], or serving of images, and not [ ειδολοδουλεια ], or worshipping of idols. Seeing they mock God sophistically, there is no man that is endued even but with common understanding, which doth not see that they are more than ridiculous even in such toys. For although I move no question about the word, it is certain that the word [ τυπος ]; is more honorable than [ εικων ]. But those same [ τυποι ], or figures, are simply condemned in this place, which men make to themselves, not only [ προς την λατρειαν ], or that they may worship them, but [ προς την προσκυνησιν ], that is, that they may give them even any reverence at all. Therefore that filthy distinction falleth flat to the ground, wherein the Papists think they have a crafty starting-hole. (456)

Beyond Babylon. The prophet nameth Damascus; neither doth the Greek interpretation dissent from the same. Wherefore it may be that the word Babylon cropt [crept] in here through error; though in the sum of the thing there be no great difference. The Israelites were to be carried away to Babylon; but because they thought that they had a sure and strong fortress in the kingdom of Syria, whose

head Damascus was, therefore the prophet saith that Damascus shall not help them, but that God shall drive them farther; as if he should say, So long as you have Damascus set against your enemies, you think that you are well fenced; but God shall carry you away beyond it; even into Assyria and Chaldea.

ELLICOTT, "(43) Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch.—The verb implies the up-lifting of the tabernacle of Moloch, in the same manner as the ark was borne (Exodus 25:14; 1 Kings 2:26), as a sacred ensign in the march of the Israelites. The Hebrew word for “tabernacle” (Siccuth) is an unusual one, and may have been used as a proper name; the word rendered “Moloch,” being descriptive, Siccuth your king. The prohibition of the distinctive rite of Moloch worship in Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2, is, perhaps, in favour of the common rendering. In spite of this prohibition, however, it reappeared continually under the kings, both of Judah (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 32:35) and Israel (2 Kings 17:17; Ezekiel 23:37).

And the star of your god Remphan.—Remphan appears to have been understood by the LXX. translators as an equivalent for the Hebrew “Chiun,” which is supposed by many scholars to be identified with the planet Saturn, of which “Ræphan” (the LXX. form of the name) was the Coptic or Egyptian name. There is no adequate proof, however, that the planet was so known, and the Hebrew may bear the meaning of the pedestal of your images. As to “star,” however, there is no question, and this was enough for Stephen’s purpose, as proving the worship of the host of heaven.

I will carry you away beyond Babylon.—Both the Hebrew and the LXX. give “Damascus”; and we are left to choose between an intentional variation, to emphasise the actual fulfilment of the words as surpassing what the prophet had foretold, or an inaccuracy naturally incident to a quotation from memory. One section of the speech, that which accumulates proof that Israel, had been all along a rebellious people. seems to end here. The next deals with the charge that Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against the Temple.

44 “Our ancestors had the tabernacle of the covenant law with them in the wilderness. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen.

BARES, "The tabernacle of witness - The “tent” or “tabernacle” which Moses was commanded to make. It was called a tabernacle of “witness,” or of “testimony,” because it was the visible witness or proof of God‘s presence with them; the evidence that he to whom it was devoted was their protector and guide. The name is given either to the “tent,” to the two tables of stone, or to the ark; all of which were “witnesses,” or “evidences” of God‘s relation to them as their Lawgiver and guide, Exodus 16:34; Exodus 25:16, Exodus 25:21; Exodus 27:21; Exodus 30:6, Exodus 30:36; Exodus 31:18, etc.; umbers 1:50, umbers 1:53. The two charges against Stephen were, that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses or his Law, and against the temple, Acts 6:13-14. In the previous part of this defense he had shown his respect for Moses and his Law. He now proceeds to show that he did not design to speak with disrespect of the temple, or the holy places of their worship. He therefore expresses his belief in the divine appointment of both the tabernacle Acts 7:44-46 and of the temple Acts 7:47.

According to the fashion … - According to the pattern that was shown to him, by which it was to be made, Exodus 25:9, Exodus 25:40; Exodus 26:30. As God showed him “a pattern,” it proved that the tabernacle had his sanction. Against that Stephen did not intend to speak.

CLARKE, "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness - That is, the tabernacle in which the two tables of stone written by the finger of God were laid up, as a testimony that he had delivered these laws to the people, and that they had promised to obey them. As one great design of St. Stephen was to show the Jews that they placed too much dependence on outward privileges, and had not used the law, the tabernacle, the temple, nor the temple service, for the purpose of their institution, he labors to bring them to a due sense of this, that conviction might lead to repentance and conversion. And he farther shows that God did not confine his worship to one place, or form. He was worshipped without any shrine in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He was worshipped with a tabernacle, or portable temple, in the wilderness. He was worshipped also in the fixed temple projected by David, but built by Solomon. He asserts farther that his infinite majesty cannot be confined to temples, made by human hands; and where there is neither tabernacle nor temple, (in any part of his vast dominions), he may be worshipped acceptably by the upright in heart. Thus he proves that neither tabernacle nor temple are essentially requisite for the true worship of the true God. Concerning the tabernacle to which St. Stephen here refers, the reader is requested to consult the notes on Exodus 25:8, etc., and the subsequent chapters.

Speaking unto Moses - Ὁ λαλων, Who spake, as in the margin; signifying the angel of God who spake to Moses, or God himself. See Exodus 25:40.

GILL, "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "of Sinai"; there it was that the tabernacle was first ordered to be

built, and there it was built, and set up; which was a sort of a portable temple, in which Jehovah took up his residence, and which was carried from place to place: of it, and its several parts and furniture, there is a large account in Exodus 25:1. It is sometimes called Ohel Moed, or "the tabernacle of the congregation", because there the people of Israel gathered together, and God met with them; and sometimes "the tabernacle of the testimony", or "witness", as here; Exodus 38:21 umbers 1:50 because the law, called the tables of the testimony, and the testimony, it being a testification or declaration of the will of God, was put into an ark; which for that reason is called the ark of the testimony; and which ark was placed in the tabernacle; and hence that took the same name too. The Jewish writers sayF11, it is so called,

"because it was a testimony that the Shekinah dwelt in Israel';

or as anotherF12 expresses it,

"it was a testimony to Israel that God had pardoned them concerning the affair of the calf, for, lo, his Shekinah dwelt among them.'

This tabernacle, in which was the testimony of the will of God, what he would have done, and how he would be worshipped, and which was a token of his presence, was among the Jewish fathers whilst they were in the wilderness; and is mentioned as an aggravation of their sin, that they should now, or afterwards, take up and carry the tabernacle of Mo. The Alexandrian copy reads, "your fathers"; the sense is the same.

As he had appointed; that is, as God appointed, ordered, and commanded:

speaking unto Moses, Exodus 25:40

that he should make it according to the fashion he had seen; when in the Mount with God; Hebrews 8:5 for it was not a bare account of the tabernacle, and its vessels, which he hearing, might form an idea of in his mind; but there was a visible form represented to his eye, a pattern, exemplar, or archetype of the whole, according to which everything was to be made; which teaches us, that everything in matters of worship ought to be according to the rule which God has given, from which we should never swerve in the least.

HERY 44-50, "II. He gives an answer particularly to the charge exhibited against him relating to the temple, that he spoke blasphemous words against that holy place, Acts 7:44-50. He was accused for saying that Jesus would destroy this holy place: "And what if I did say so?" (saith Stephen) "the glory of the holy God is not bound up in the glory of this holy place, but that may be preserved untouched, though this be laid in the dust " for, 1. "It was not till our fathers came into the wilderness, in their way to Canaan, that they had any fixed place of worship and yet the patriarchs, many ages before, worshipped God acceptably at the altars they had adjoining to their own tents in the open air--sub dio and he that was worshipped

without a holy place in the first, and best, and purest ages of the Old-Testament church, may and will be so when this holy place is destroyed, without any diminution to his glory." 2. The holy place was at first but a tabernacle, mean and movable, showing itself to be short-lived, and not designed to continue always. Why might not this holy place, though built of stones, be decently brought to its end, and give place to its betters, as well as that though framed of curtains? As it was no dishonour, but an honour to God, that the tabernacle gave way to the temple, so it is now that the material temple gives way to the spiritual one, and so it will be when, at last, the spiritual temple shall give way to the eternal one. 3. That tabernacle was a tabernacle of witness, or of testimony, a figure of good things to come, of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not men, Hebrews 8:2. This was the glory both of the tabernacle and temple, that they were erected for a testimony of that temple of God which in the latter days should be opened in heaven (Revelation 11:19), and of Christ's tabernacling on earth (as the word is, John 1:14), and of the temple of his body. 4. That tabernacle was framed just as God appointed, and according to the fashion which Moses saw in the mount, which plainly intimates that it had reference to good things to come. Its rise being heavenly, its meaning and tendency were so and therefore it was no diminution at all to its glory to say that this temple made with hands should be destroyed, in order to the building of another made without hands, which was Christ's crime (Mark 14:58), and Stephen's. 5. That tabernacle was pitched first in the wilderness it was not a native of this land of yours (to which you think it must for ever be confined), but was brought in in the next age, by our fathers, who came after those who first erected it, into the possession of the Gentiles, into the land of Canaan, which had long been in the possession of the devoted nations whom God drove out before the face of our fathers. And why may not God set up his spiritual temple, as he had done the material tabernacle, in those countries that were now the possession of the Gentiles? That tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua. And I think, for distinction sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be so read, both Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8. Yet in naming Joshua here, which in Greek is Jesus, there may be a tacit intimation that as the Old-Testament Joshua brought in that typical tabernacle, so the ew-Testament Joshua should bring in the true tabernacle into the possession of the Gentiles. 6. That tabernacle continued for many ages, even to the days of David, above four hundred years, before there was any thought of building a temple, Acts 7:45. David, having found favour before God, did indeed desire this further favour, to have leave to build God a house, to be a constant settled tabernacle, or dwelling-place, for the Shechinah, or the tokens of the presence of the God of Jacob, Acts 7:46. Those who have found favour with God should show themselves forward to advance the interests of his kingdom among men. 7. God had his heart so little upon a temple, or such a holy place as they were so jealous for, that, when David desired to build one, he was forbidden to do it God was in no haste for one, as he told David (2 Samuel 7:7), and therefore it was not he, but his son Solomon, some years after, that built him a house. David had all that sweet communion with God in public worship which we read of in his Psalms before there was any temple built. 8. God often declared that temples made with hands were not his delight, nor could add any thing to the perfection of his rest and joy. Solomon, when he dedicated the temple, acknowledged that God dwelleth not in

temples made with hands he has not need of them, is not benefited by them, cannot be confined to them. The whole world is his temple, in which he is every where present, and fills it with his glory and what occasion has he for a temple then to manifest himself in? Indeed the pretended deities of the heathen needed temples made with hands, for they were gods made with hands (Acts 7:41), and had no other place to manifest themselves in than in their own temples but the one only true and living God needs no temple, for the heaven is his throne, in which he rests, and the earth is his footstool, over which he rules (Acts 7:49,50), and therefore, What house will you build me, comparable to this which I have already? Or, what is the place of my rest? What need have I of a house, either to repose myself in or to show myself? Hath not my hand made all these things? And these show his eternal power and Godhead (Romans 1:20) they so show themselves to all mankind that those who worship other gods are without excuse. And as the world is thus God's temple, wherein he is manifested, so it is God's temple in which he will be worshipped. As the earth is full of his glory, and is therefore his temple (Isaiah 6:3), so the earth is, or shall be, full of his praise (Habakkuk 3:3), and all the ends of the earth shall fear him (Psalm 67:7), and upon this account it is his temple. It was therefore no reflection at all upon this holy place, however they might take it, to say that Jesus should destroy this temple, and set up another, into which all nations should be admitted, Acts 15:16,17. And it would not seem strange to those who considered that scripture which Stephen here quotes (Isaiah 66:1-3), which, as it expressed God's comparative contempt of the external part of his service, so it plainly foretold the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, and the welcome of the Gentiles that were of a contrite spirit into the church.

CALVI, "44.The tabernacle of witness. Stephen showeth here that the blame cannot be laid upon God, because the Jews polluted themselves with divers superstitions, as if God had suffered them to wander freely. (457) For he saith that God had commanded how he would be worshipped by them. Whereupon it followeth that they were entangled in so many errors, because they would not follow that form which God had appointed. Although he girdeth [reprehendeth] them for two causes: Because, being not content with that rule alone which God had prescribed, they invented to themselves strange worships; secondly, because they had no respect unto the right end of the temple, and of the ceremonies which God had appointed. For whereas they ought to have been unto them exercises of the spiritual worship, they apprehended nothing but that which was carnal, according to their carnal nature; (458) that is, they took the shadow for the body.

Therefore we see that the Jews were first reprehended for their boldness, for because that being not content with the plain word of God, they were carried away after their own inventions. Secondly, they are reproved for the preposterous abuse of the true and sincere worship; because they followed the flesh instead of the Spirit. They had, saith he, the tabernacle of witness. Therefore it was their own wantonness and rashness only which caused them to sin. For seeing they were well taught what was the right way and order of worshipping God, all cloak and color of ignorance was taken away.

Which thing is worth the noting. For seeing God doth after a sort bridle us, when he maketh his will known unto us, if after we have received his commandment we turn aside, either unto the right hand or to the left, we be twice guilty; because the servant which knoweth his master’s will, and doth it not, shall suffer more stripes: This is the first mark whereby the Holy Spirit doth distinguish all bastardly and corrupt worshippings from the true and sincere worship. Yea, (to speak more briefly,) the first difference between true worship and idolatry is this: when the godly take in hand nothing but that which is agreeable to the Word of God, but the other think all that lawful which pleaseth themselves, and so they count their own will a law; whereas God alloweth nothing but that which he himself hath appointed. To this end serveth the word witness.

The Hebrew word [ מד ] (moed) signifieth, indeed, an appointed place and time, or an assembly of men; but the reason expressed in Moses showeth that there is another cause why it is so named. For in Moses this is oftentimes repeated, “I will meet with you there.” Therefore the tabernacle was consecrated by the covenant and the word of the Lord, and his voice was heard there continually, that it might be distinguished from all profane places.

According to the form which he had seen. This is referred unto the second point which I have touched; for it may be that he which shall use the ceremonies only which God appointed, shall notwithstanding worship God amiss. For God careth not for external rites, save only inasmuch as they are of the heavenly truth; therefore God would have the tabernacle to be made like unto the heavenly figure, (459) that the Jews might know that they were not to stay still in the external figures. Furthermore, let him which is disposed read my Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and he shall see what that figure, whereof mention is made Exodus 25:0, (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5,) did signify. Stephen doth only briefly tell them in this place that the worship which God commanded the Jews is spiritual, and that they, according to their carnal blockishness, were evil and false interpreters; therefore, as we have said, that God alloweth no worship but that which is grounded in his commandment, so we are taught here that it is requisite in the right use of the commandment, that the spiritual truth be present; which thing being granted, it was the like question which we said did consist principally in this issue, whether the shadows ought to yield to the body or not. Whereas Moses is said to have seen a form or figure, the Spirit of God signifieth thereby that it is unlawful for us to invent forms at our pleasure; but that all our senses must be set upon that form which God showeth, that all our religion may be formed according to it. The word figure signifieth here, in this place, the principal pattern, (460) which is nothing else but the spiritual truth.

BESO, "Acts 7:44-47. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness — Greek, του µαρτυριου, of the testimony. The two tables of stone, on which the ten commandments were written, were most properly the testimony, as being a constant testimony of the relation between God and Israel: hence the ark, which contained

them, is frequently called the ark of the testimony; and the whole tabernacle in this place, the tabernacle of the testimony. This, says Stephen, was with our fathers in the wilderness, a tabernacle made in all respects as God had appointed, who, speaking unto Moses, commanded him to make it according to the fashion, or model, that he had seen — amely, in the mount, Exodus 25:40. “As Stephen had been accused of blaspheming the temple, he, with great propriety, takes occasion to speak of their sacred places with due reverence, as raised by special direction from God; and yet corrects that extravagant regard for them, and confidence in them, which the Jews entertained.” — Doddridge. Which our fathers, that came after —Or rather, as διαδεξαµενοι more properly signifies, having received; brought in with Jesus — That is, with Joshua, when he led them over Jordan; into the possession of the Gentiles — Into the land which the Gentiles possessed before. So that God’s favour is not a necessary consequence of inhabiting this land. All along Stephen intimates two things: 1st, That God always loved good men in every land. 2d, That he never loved bad men even in this. Unto the days of David — That is, the tabernacle continued for many ages, even unto David’s time, to be the resort of the pious worshippers in Israel; above four hundred years before there was any thought of building a temple. David indeed having found favour before God, desired —Greek, ητησατο, petitioned, this further blessing, on which his heart was set; even to have the honour to find a tabernacle — Or a dwelling more stable and splendid; for the God of Jacob — But he did not obtain his petition. For, as he had been a man of war, and had shed much blood, God would not permit him to build the temple. He laid a plan for it, however, and consecrated a considerable part of the spoils which he had taken from the enemy toward erecting it. But God remained without any temple till Solomon built him a house — Which, till the reign of that prince, he never had commanded or permitted to be done. Observe how wisely the word house is used here, rather than the word temple, with respect to what follows.

COFFMA, "According to the figure that he had seen ... This is additional inspired testimony regarding the "pattern," here called "a figure," that Moses had received from God and according to which he was commanded to "make all things" (Hebrews 8:5). The immense importance of understanding that God has given a pattern which men must follow if they would please their Creator is fully disclosed under the heading, "All Things According to the Pattern," in my Commentary on Hebrews, under Hebrews 8:5.

But Solomon built him a house ... When David's conscience was aroused because of the luxury of his cedar-paneled palace contrasted with the tent-shrine that housed the ark of the covenant, the prophet athan made it clear to David that God did not want any temple built by him, but promised that a "son of David would arise and build a house for God" (2 Samuel 7). Stephen's short reference to the temple of Solomon shows dramatically that the very temple itself was only a substitute for the greater temple of Christ himself, typical of the latter to be sure, and like the monarchy itself, allowed indeed of God; but still only a substitute for the real temple, which is Christ. This was the great message of the Christ that "One greater than the temple is here" (Matthew 12:6). (See John 2:20-22.) Stephen's argument,

then, is simply that Christ is the true temple, that "in Christ," not in some building," men are called to worship God. This was a categorical refutation of the notion that he had blasphemed God (i.e., the temple) by repeating the prophecy of Jesus that the Solomonic-Herodian temple would be destroyed. They, the Sanhedrinists, were blaspheming God by rejecting God's true temple, Jesus of azareth!

COSTABLE, "Stephen pointed out that it was the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness that God had ordered built, not the temple. God even gave Moses blueprints to follow in constructing it because its design had instructive value. The tabernacle of testimony was important primarily because it contained God's revealed will and it was the place that God's presence dwelt in a localized sense. The "testimony" was the tablets of the Mosaic Law that rested in the ark of the covenant.

Verses 44-50Stephen's view of the temple 7:44-50Stephen effectively refuted the general charges that he blasphemed God and Moses (Acts 6:11; cf Acts 7:2-16) and spoke against the Law (Acts 6:13; cf. Acts 7:17-43). He next addressed the charge that he spoke against the temple (Acts 6:13). The charges that he had said Jesus would destroy the temple and alter Jewish customs (Acts 6:14) were really specific accusations growing out of Stephen's view of the temple.

The Jewish leaders of Stephen's day attached inordinate importance to the temple, as they did to the Mosaic Law and the Promised Land. They had distorted God's view of the temple as they had distorted His meaning in the Law. Instruction concerning both the Law, which specified Israel's walk before people, and the tabernacle, which specified her worship of God, came to Moses when he was out of the Promised Land, at Mt. Sinai.

PETT, "‘Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as he appointed who spoke to Moses, that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen.’

Their fathers had ‘the Tabernacle of the Testimony in the wilderness’, which was made according to God’s pattern, just as the One Who spoke to Moses had appointed him. So the Tabernacle, which contained the covenant came from the wilderness, from the very mountain of God . It was portable, as befitted a universal God, and was according to God’s pattern and received in the wilderness at the mountain of God under God’s instructions. All was therefore of God, and nothing was of the land.What Israel’s Attitude Towards God’s Dwellingplace Had Been (7:44-50).

What Stephen said here would mainly have been acceptable to many Hellenistic Jews, certainly in Alexandria where they were used to allegorisation. But it was not

going to be acceptable in the home of the Temple.

Verses 44-53Reply to the Charge of Speaking Against the Law and the Temple (7:44-53).

Having been accused of speaking against the Law Stephen defends himself by speaking in favour of the oracles of God and pointing out how they and their fathers had not been obedient to them.

This may be analysed as follows:

· Israel received the God-designed Tabernacle which came from God but did not keep it (Acts 7:44-46).· Israel rejected the God-appointed Tabernacle and chose the man devised Temple (Acts 7:48-50).· Israel chose to resist the Holy Spirit and rejected God’s appointed messengers, even finally rejecting the Righteous One Himself (Acts 7:51-52).· Israel received the God-designed Law, but did not keep it (Acts 7:53).

ELLICOTT, "(44) The tabernacle of witness.—The word was applied by the LXX. to the Tabernacle, as in umbers 9:15; umbers 17:7, as containing the Two Tables of Stone, which were emphatically the testimony of what was God’s will as the rule of man’s conduct (Exodus 25:16; Exodus 25:21; Exodus 31:18). It should be noted that the LXX. gives the same rendering for the words which the English version translates as the “tabernacle of the congregation,” e.g., in Exodus 29:10; Exodus 33:7; umbers 16:18-19.

As he had appointed, speaking unto Moses.—The answer to the charge lay in these words. Stephen admitted and asserted the divine sanction that had been given to Tabernacle and Temple. What he denied was that that sanction involved perpetuity. It is not without interest to note in the thought thus implied the germ of Hooker’s great argument in the Third Book of his Ecclesiastical Polity (c. 11).

45 After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David,

BARES, "Our fathers that came after - one of the generation that came out of Egypt were permitted to enter into the and of Canaan except Caleb and Joshua, umbers 14:22-24; umbers 32:11-12. Hence, it is said that their fathers who “came after,” that is, after the generation when the tabernacle was built. The Greek, however, here means, properly, “which also our fathers, having “received,” brought,” etc. The sense is not materially different. Stephen means that it was not brought in by that generation, but by the next.

With Jesus - This should have been rendered “with Joshua.” Jesus is the Greek mode of writing the name “Joshua.” But the Hebrew name should by all means have been retained here, as also in Hebrews 4:8.

Into the possession of the Gentiles - Into the land possessed by the Gentiles, that is, into the promised land then occupied by the Canaanites, etc.

Whom God … - That is, he continued to drive them out until the time of David, when they were completely expelled. Or it may mean that the tabernacle was in the possession of the Jews, and was the appointed place of worship, until the time of David, who desired to build him a temple. The Greek is ambiguous. The “connection” favors the latter interpretation.

CLARKE, "Brought in with Jesus - That is, with Joshua, whom the Greek version, quoted by St. Stephen, always writes Ιησους, Jesus, but which should constantly be written Joshua in such cases as the present, in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion.

Possession of the Gentiles - Των εθνων, of the heathens, whom Joshua conquered, and gave their land to the children of Israel.

GILL, "Which also our fathers that came after,.... Who came after those that died in the wilderness, and never saw nor entered into the land of Canaan; the children of that generation whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, who sprung from them, came up in their room, and succeeded them:

brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles; that is, they having received the tabernacle from their fathers, brought it into the land of Canaan, which was possessed by the Gentiles, when they entered into it with Joshua their leader, and captain, at the head of them; who is here called Jesus, as he is in Hebrews 4:8 for Joshua and Jesus are the same name, and signify a saviour; for such an one Joshua was to the people of Israel; and was an eminent type of Jesus Christ, the captain of our salvation, in his bringing many sons to glory:

whom God drove out before the face of our fathers; the Gentiles, who before possessed the land of Canaan, were drove out by God before the Israelites, to make way for their settlement there; for to whom can the success of those victories over

the Canaanites be ascribed, which the Israelites under Joshua obtained, but to God? The language on the "Tingitane", or Hercules's pillars, said to be set up by some of these Canaanites, agrees with this, on which they inscribed these words;

"we are they who fled from the face of Joshua the robber, the son of ave,'

or un:

unto the days of David; this clause must not be read in connection with the words immediately preceding, as if the sense was, that the inhabitants of Canaan were drove out of their land unto the times of David, and then returned and resettled, as in the Ethiopic version; but with the beginning of the verse, and the meaning is, that the tabernacle which the Israelites received from their fathers, and brought into the land of Canaan with them, was there unto the times of David.

JAMISO,"our fathers that came after — rather, “having received it by succession” (Margin), that is, the custody of the tabernacle from their ancestors.brought in with Jesus — or Joshua.

into the possession — rather, “at the taking possession of [the territory of] the Gentiles.”

unto the days of David — for till then Jerusalem continued in the hands of the Jebusites. But Stephen‘s object in mentioning David is to hasten from the tabernacle which he set up, to the temple which his son built, in Jerusalem; and this only to show, from their own Scripture (Isaiah 66:1, Isaiah 66:2), that even that temple, magnificent though it was, was not the proper resting-place of Jehovah upon earth; as his audience and the nations had all along been prone to imagine. (What that resting-place was, even “the contrite heart, that trembleth at God‘s word,” he leaves to be gathered from the prophet referred to).CALVI, "45.Which they brought in. This serveth to increase the frowardness (461) of the nation, that whereas the tabernacle did continue with them, and they carried the same whithersoever they went, yet could they not be kept within the bounds of God’s covenant, but they would have strange and profane rites; to wit, declaring that God dwelt amidst them, from whom they were so far distant, and whom they did drive out of that inheritance which he had given them. To this purpose serveth that also, that God did beautify the tabernacle with divers miracles; for the worthiness thereof (462) was established by those victories which the Jews had gotten, as it appeareth by divers places of the holy history; therefore, it must needs be that they were very disobedient, which did not cease oftentimes to start aside from that worship which was so many ways approved.

Until the days of David. Although the ark of the Lord continued long in Shiloh, yet it had no certain place until the reign of David, (1 Samuel 1:3;) for it was unlawful for men to erect a place for the same, but it was to be placed in that place which the Lord had showed, as Moses saith oftentimes. either durst David himself, after he had taken it from the enemies, bring it into the thrashing-floor of Araunah until the

Lord had declared, by an angel from heaven, that that was the place which he had chosen, (2 Samuel 24:16.) And Stephen counteth this a singular benefit of God, not without great cause, that the place was showed to David wherein the Israelites should hereafter worship God; as in the Psalm he rejoiceth as over some notable thing: “I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the Lord; our feet shall be stable in thy courts, O Jerusalem,” (Psalms 132:3) The priesthood was coupled with the kingdom; therefore, the stability of the kingdom is showed in the resting of the ark; therefore it is said that he desired this so earnestly that he bound himself with a solemn vow, that he would not come within his house, that his eyes should enjoy no sleep, nor his temples any rest, until he should know a place for the Lord, and a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. Furthermore, the place was showed to David, but it was granted to Solomon to build the temple, (1 Kings 5:7.)

PETT, "‘Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua (Jesus) when they entered on the possession of the nations, whom God thrust out before the face of our fathers, to the days of David,’

It was then brought into the land by another Jesus (Greek), by Joshua (Hebrew), when they took over ‘the possession of the nations’ at the time when God thrust them out before them. So God’s original ‘dwellingplace’ was God-given and came from outside the land, brought into it when God acted in order to give them the land as their possession, a land which had belonged to the nations. It was thus the God of the Tabernacle Who had given them the land. This situation continued until the days of David. They worshipped at the God-given, God designed, portable, wilderness Tabernacle received at the mountain of God outside the land.

The contrast with the Temple is quite clear and quite startling. It was not of the land, it was God-designed and the God Who was connected with it was powerfully effective. Being a tent, which could be used when necessary but was not a permanent home, it was suitable as an earthly place where the transcendent God could come to meet His people without being tied down. And it entered into the land with Him when God took possession of it. Thus possession of the land was linked with the Tabernacle, not the Temple. There were in fact many ordinary Jews who saw the Tabernacle as the ideal place of worship, including the Covenanters at Qumran. But what they failed to do, unlike Stephen, was to see beyond the Tabernacle to the heavenly Tabernacle (compare Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:11). They were going backwards instead of forwards.

ELLICOTT, "(45) Brought in with Jesus.—This is, of course, as in Hebrews 4:8, the “Joshua” of the Old Testament. It would, perhaps, have been better, as a general rule, to have reproduced the Hebrew rather than the Greek form of Old Testament names in the English version of the ew. On the other hand, there is, in this instance, something gained in our attention being called to the identity of the two names. It is noticeable that though Stephen was on his trial as a disciple of Jesus of azareth, that name does not pass his lips as he speaks in his defence, except in this reference to the great captain of Israel. It is possible that under this reticence, there may have been a half-veiled reference to Him who, also bearing the name that

marked Him out as a Saviour, had come, after another fashion, “into the possession of the Gentiles.” The word for “possession” is found in Acts 7:5, but not elsewhere in the ew Testament. In the LXX. it is common enough, as in Genesis 47:11; Leviticus 25:24; Deuteronomy 32:51.

46 who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.[k]

BARES, "Who found favour … - That is, God granted him great prosperity, and delivered him from his enemies.

To find a tabernacle - To prepare a permanent dwelling-place for the “ark,” and for the visible symbols of the divine presence. Hitherto the ark had been kept in the tabernacle, and had been borne about from place to place. David sought to build a house that would be permanent, where the ark might be deposited, 1 Chronicles 22:7.

CLARKE, "Desired to find a tabernacle - This was in David's heart, and it met with the Divine approbation: see 2 Samuel 7:2, etc., and see the purpose, Psalm 132:2-5; but, as David had been a man of war, and had shed much blood, God would not permit him to build the temple; but he laid the plan and made provision for it, and Solomon executed the design.

GILL, "Who found favour before God,.... That is, David, who had an interest in the free favour and love of God, was chosen of God, a man after his own heart, and raised up to do his will; and who had the grace of God implanted in him, and was acceptable, and well pleasing to God through Christ; the same is said of oah, Genesis 6:8

and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob; from whom the Israelites descended: David having a deep sense of the love of God to him, and the grace of God wrought in his heart, was exceeding desirous of finding a place for the building of an house, or fixed habitation for God; for there was a tabernacle already, which had been from the time of Moses, and which the children of Israel brought with them into Canaan, and was moved from place to place; sometimes it was at Gilgal, sometimes at Shiloh, and then it was at ob, and Gibeah, and at length it was brought by David into his own city; but he wanted to build a settled and stable house for the Lord, of which there was a hint given that the Lord would choose a place to put his name in, Deuteronomy 16:2 but it seems, where that was to be was

not known; and therefore David very anxiously sought after it; the reference is had to Psalm 132:3 where David determines not to go to his house, nor up to his bed, nor give sleep, to his eyes, nor slumber to his eyelids, till he had found out a place for the habitation of the God of Jacob.

COKE, "Acts 7:46-50. And desired to find a tabernacle, &c.— ' Ητησατο, made it his petition. From the account which the Scripture gives of David, it appears how greatly he longed to find out a place for the Lord,—an habitation,—which is a properer word than tabernacle in this place. Comp. 2 Samuel 7:2. &c. and Psalms 132:1-5. However, as he was a man of war, and had shed blood, he was not allowed to build the temple; which was deferred to the peaceful reign of his son; and hence the plain inference was, that if king David was not thought fit to build the temple, because he was a man of blood, how much less fit are they to have such a structure continued to them, who have murdered the great Messiah, king David's son and Lord. Farther, it is evident, that David and the Patriarchs worshipped God as acceptably before this temple was built, as he was worshipped afterwards; though it cannot be denied that both the tabernacle and the temple were erected according to the will and appointment of God; and,when used agreeably to the original design and intention of them, were highly to be esteemed. St. Stephen, however, goes on to convince them that they set too great a value on this temple, when they would confine to it the divine presence, and all acceptable worship, seeing that God is the omnipresent being, able to shew favour to the pious and holy in one place, as well as another, throughout the whole creation. ay, indeed, the whole creation is too narrow a temple for the omniscient and omnipresent God.

PETT, "‘Who found favour in the sight of God, and asked to find a habitation for the house of Jacob (or in some MSS ‘the God of Jacob’).’

And David himself found favour in God’s sight, and wanted to find some kind of habitation (skene - tent) for the house (or ‘God’) of Jacob. However, as all knew, God had forbidden him to erect a permanent house, which was surely significant (2 Samuel 7:5-7). Stephen is deliberately bringing out that David’s idea was of a habitation of God which was satisfactory to God, and could therefore be compared with the Tabernacle, in contrast with the Temple.

‘A tent for the house/God of Jacob.’ The best manuscripts have ‘a tent for the house of Jacob’. It may be that here Stephen is using ‘Jacob’ as a shortened form for ‘the God of Jacob’ (compare Psalms 24:6), meaning therefore that David sought a tent which would be suitable for the house of the God of Jacob. Or the meaning may simply be a tent suitable for the house of Jacob to worship in. See here Isaiah 2:2-5 where the ‘house of the God of Jacob’ is the exalted new age Temple, and the house of Jacob are called to walk in His ways.

For ‘a habitation for the God of Jacob’, which is the reading in A E, compare ‘a dwellingplace for the Mighty One of Jacob’ (Psalms 132:5).

Whichever is the correct reading the idea is that David was seeking something suitable for the worship of God. And Stephen was probably indicating that notice should be taken of the fact that God forbade him to build a Temple because he was not a fit person to do so, as indeed we shall soon learn no one was fir to do so. A house made with human hands could never be satisfactory. It glorified humanity.

ELLICOTT, "(46) Who found favour before God.—Again we trace, though still in the form of a narrative, an indirect answer to the accusation brought against Stephen. He was ready to acknowledge without reserve that the Temple was planned by the man after God’s own heart, and built by the wisest of the sons of men. But the question still remained whether it was therefore the symbol of a final and perfect worship, whether it did not bear witness to its own incompleteness.

47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him.

BARES, "But Solomon … - Built the temple. David was not permitted to do it because he had been a man of war, 1 Chronicles 22:8. He prepared the principal materials for the temple, but Solomon built it, 1 Chronicles 22: Compare 1 Kings 6.

GILL, "But Solomon built him an house. Though David was so set upon it, and made such large provisions for it, he was not to be the man that should build it, he having been greatly concerned in wars, and in the effusion of blood; but Solomon his son, who enjoyed much peace, was the person designed for this work, and who did accomplish it; of which there is a large account in the 1 Kings 6:1.

CALVI, "47.Solomon built. Stephen seemeth to gird Solomon glancingly (463) in this place, as if he did not regard the nature of God in building the temple; yet did he attempt that work not without the commandment of God. There was also a promise added, wherein God did testify that he would be present with his people there. I answer, that when Stephen denieth that God dwelleth in temples made with hands, that is not referred unto Solomon, who knew full well that God was to be sought in heaven, and that men’s minds must be lifted up thither by faith; which thing he uttered also in that solemn prayer which he made:

“The heaven of heavens do not contain thee,and how much less this house?” (1 Kings 8:23;)

but he reproveth the blockishness of the people, which abused the temple, as if it had had God tied to it; which appeareth more plainly by the testimony of Isaiah, (Isaiah 6:6,) which he citeth also; God, saith he, would have Solomon to build him a temple; but they were greatly deceived who thought that he was, as it were, included in such a building; as he complaineth by his prophet that the people do him injury, when as they imagine that he is tied to a place; but the prophet doth not for that cause only inveigh against the Jews, because they worshipped God superstitiously, thinking that his power was tied to the temple, but because they did esteem him according to their own affection, and, therefore, after that they had ended (464) their sacrifices and external pomp, they imagined that he was pleased, and that they had brought him indebted to them. This was almost a common error in all ages; because men thought that cold ceremonies were sufficient enough for the worship of God. The reason is, because forasmuch as they are carnal, and wholly set upon the world, they imagine that God is like to them; therefore, to the end God may take from them this blockishness, he saith that hefilleth all things.

PETT, "‘But Solomon built him a house.’

But it was Solomon who went about it. And what did he do? He built Him a house. And yet even Solomon had recognised that God did not dwell in a House made with hands, because He is Lord over all (1 Kings 8:27). How foolish then to build such a house which could only give his people the wrong idea about God.

Solomon’s Temple (like Herod’s Temple) was a perfect example of what Stephen was drawing attention to. It was grandiose, it was designed by a foreigner, it was on a distorted pattern, and it was permanently fixed in one place, totally the opposite of the Tabernacle.

48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

BARES, "Howbeit - But. Stephen was charged with speaking against the temple. He had now shown that he had due veneration for it, by his declaring that it had been built by the command of God. But he “now” adds that God does not need such

a temple. Heaven is his throne; the universe his dwelling-place; and “therefore” this temple might be destroyed. A new, glorious truth was to be revealed to mankind, that God was not “confined” in his worship to any age, or people, or nation. In entire consistency, therefore, with all proper respect for the temple at Jerusalem, it might be maintained that the time would come when that temple would be destroyed, and when God might be worshipped by all nations.

The Most High - God. This sentiment was expressed by Solomon when the temple was dedicated, 1 Kings 8:27.

As saith the prophet - Isaiah 66:1-2. The place is not literally quoted, but the sense is given.

CLARKE, "The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands - Here St. Stephen evidently refers to Solomon's speech, 1 Kings 8:27. But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less this house that I have builded? Both Solomon and St. Stephen mean that the majesty of God could not be contained, not even in the whole vortex of nature; much less in any temple which human hands could erect.

As saith the prophet - The place referred to is Isaiah 66:1, Isaiah 66:2; : Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. Where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest, etc., with which the quotation by Stephen agrees.

GILL, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands,.... Such an one as Solomon's was; he did indeed dwell in his temple, but he was not confined to it, nor included in it, or circumscribed by it; and so much Solomon himself suggests, when he expresses his wonder at his dwelling on earth, seeing the heaven of heavens could not contain him, and still less the house which he had built, 1 Kings 8:27, עליון, "the most High", is one of the names of God, Genesis 14:18 the Apostle Paul says the same of God as Stephen does here; Acts 17:24 "as saith the prophet"; the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah 66:1.

BESO, "Acts 7:48-50. Howbeit — αλλα, but, or yet; we are not to imagine that God permitted a temple to be built even then for his own sake: for it was acknowledged, at the same time, by Solomon himself, that the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands — Be they ever so rich, splendid, and majestic. As saith the prophet — amely, Isaiah, chap. Isaiah 66:1, where, speaking in the name of God, he says, Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool; and how then should my presence be confined to any particular place? What house will ye build me —Suitable for me; saith the Lord: or, what is the place of my rest? — Have I need of rest? What need have I of a house? either to rest in, or wherein to show my glory? Hath not my hand made all these things? — Whatever splendour any temples may have, did not I form the materials with which they are built, and endow the workmen, that fashioned them, with all their art and genius? Do not imagine, then, that you can confer any obligation upon me by such structures as these, or any act

of homage which you can render to me in them, nor think that you can charm me to continue my abode there, or to be a constant guard to you, merely because you have such edifices among you.

COFFMA, "Stephen summed up his argument by this appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 66:1f), which set forth the impossibility of Almighty God's actually dwelling in any house made by human hands. The great temple of the Jews had become in time a house of thieves and robbers; and, although God indeed had allowed it through the ages as typical of the greater temple yet to be revealed in Christ, it was never anything except a makeshift. eedless to say, such sentiments as these were enough to release the savage fury of the whole Sanhedrin against anyone who might dare to utter such thoughts. The fact that Isaiah had said the same thing in their sacred scriptures made no difference; they were experts at rationalizing the scriptures they did not like.

The teaching in view here is fundamental to Christianity. It is not in any house, but "in Christ," that one may receive all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places (Ephesians 1:3). There is no indication in Stephen's oration that he anticipated anything other than the condemnation of his hearers, his purpose not being to "defend" himself in any practical sense, but to preach the truth "in Christ."

It was too much for the secular Sanhedrinists that the meek and lowly Jesus should represent himself as the long expected Messiah; but that his followers should begin preaching the "spiritual body" of the risen Lord as the true temple of God, that was enough to send them into a frenzy of vicious hatred, releasing the full savagery of their carnal passions against the Christians. There was simply no way that they could accommodate to such teachings. It was in the contemplation of this that their rejection of Christ and Christianity became final and irrevocable. Stephen read the situation of the Sanhedrinists at a glance and pronounced the judgment of the Holy Spirit against them.

COSTABLE 48-50, "Stephen hastened to clarify that the Most High God, for whom a suitable house was certainly a reasonable desire, does not restrict Himself to a habitation constructed by humans. Solomon himself had acknowledged this when he dedicated the temple (cf. 1 Kings 8:27; Isaiah 66:1-2).

"Judaism never taught that God actually lived in the temple or was confined to its environs but spoke of his 'ame' and presence as being there. In practice, however, this concept was often denied. This would especially appear so to Stephen, when further divine activity was refused out-of-hand by the people in their preference for God's past revelation and redemption as symbolized in the existence of the temple." [ote: Longenecker, p. 346.]Stephen quoted Isaiah 66:1-2 for support. He referred to Isaiah as "the prophet." As a prophet Isaiah was worthy of as much respect as Moses. Significantly the last part of Isaiah 66:2 says that God esteems those who are humble and contrite in spirit and who tremble at His word. Stephen left this timely and powerful challenge

unstated for his hearers.

"It would seem that these verses form the real thrust of Stephen's speech. In quoting with approval Isaiah's words, Stephen would appear to imply that, as Christ is the new Moses, he is also the new Temple. In him and through him alone can men approach God." [ote: eil, p. 114. Cf. John 2:19, 21; Ephesians 2:19-22; Hebrews 9:1-10; 1 Peter 2:5.]Stephen reminded the Sanhedrin that the temple, which they venerated excessively, was not the primary venue of God's person and work. He was arguing that Jesus was God's designated replacement for the temple, as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews also taught.

There have been three major interpretations of Stephen's view of the temple: God would replace it, God had rejected it, or God is above it. All three views are implications of Stephen's words. [ote: See Dennis D. Sylva, "The Meaning and Function of Acts 7:46-50," Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):261-75.]

"Throughout his speech he has, of course, been undermining the superstition which exalted a place of worship. The first great revelations of God had, in fact, taken place in foreign lands, Ur, Sinai, Midian, long before the temple existed (2-4, 29-34, 44-50)." [ote: Blaiklock, p. 77.]

PETT, "‘However the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; as says the prophet,’

Thus the Temple was an error, a concession allowed by God but not really adequate (2 Samuel 7:6-7). The Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands, as the prophets have made clear. They had thrust aside God’s God-given provision and had made their own kind of provision. The title ‘Most High’ was regularly used in relation to the nations. Thus Stephen is emphasising here that God is the God of all men, not to be limited to Jerusalem. And secondly the title also stresses why He cannot be confined to a permanent house built in Jerusalem, He is ‘most High’. (Isaiah’s vision had resolved it by raising it above all mountains. That carried the similar intention of lifting it out of its earthiness).

The phrase ‘made with hands’ is intentionally derogatory. The Tabernacle had been made by sanctified and willing hands empowered by the Spirit according to God’s pattern (Exodus 30:30-35). But the Temple was very much a building of earth, with its foreign designer, enforced labour and earthly ostentation. ‘Made with hands’ is used in Acts 17:14 where it describes Temples not fit for God’s habitation, and in Acts 19:26 where Paul denigrates ‘gods’ that are ‘made with hands’. See also Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 9:24. What is made with hands is the very opposite of what God, ‘the Most High’, is.

ELLICOTT, "48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples.—The sequel shows the impression which these words made on the hearers. Stephen had risen to

the truth which, though it had been proclaimed before, had been practically dormant. It broke down the thought of any exclusive holiness in the Temple, and therefore placed its downfall among the chances and changes which might be involved in God’s chastisement of the people, and His education of mankind. The inference which we have seen reason to draw as to the probability of some connection, direct or indirect, between Stephen and the Samaritans (see otes on Acts 7:16 and Acts 6:5), suggests the thought that we may trace here something like an echo of the teaching of our Lord in His dialogue with the woman of Samaria (John 4:21-23). It is a fact of singular interest to note how one who now listened to the words as applied to the Temple of the God of Israel, afterwards embraced them in all their fulness, and used them as his text in asserting the truth they embodied as against the Temples of Zeus and Athenè (Acts 17:24).

As saith the prophet.—The truth which Stephen asserted had been uttered in the very dedication prayer of the Temple (1 Kings 8:27). The builder of the Temple had himself felt that it was the witness not of a localised but a universal Presence. But he turns to what might seem to his hearers a yet higher authority—to the great prophet (Isaiah 66:1-2), who was preeminently the preacher of glad tidings, and who had closed his mission with the utterance of the truth that, whatever glory and greatness might attach to the Temple in Jerusalem, the prayer of him that was “poor and of a contrite spirit” was equally acceptable wherever it might be offered. The words were full of deep meaning in themselves. They were yet more significant as showing that the thoughts of Stephen had been turned to that great close of a great work, and that he must thus have been led to that wider vision of the future when all nations and tongues should be gathered to see the glory of the Eternal; and the work of Israel, especially of those who, like himself, belonged to the Dispersion, should be to declare His glory to the Gentiles, and when they, too, should be accepted as priests and Levites in the true Temple (Isaiah 66:21). Here also we may think of him as anticipating the widest and highest teaching of St. Paul.

49 “‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.What kind of house will you build for me?says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?

BARES, "Heaven is my throne - See the notes on Matthew 5:34.

Earth is my footstool - See the notes on Matthew 5:35.

What house … - What house or temple can be large or magnificent enough for the dwelling of Him who made all things?

The place of my rest - My home, my abode, my fixed seat or habitation. Compare Psalm 95:11.

GILL, "Heaven is my throne,.... There is the seat of the divine Majesty; there his glory is most conspicuous; there he keeps his court, that is his palace; and there are his attendants, the angels; and from thence are the administrations of his regal power and government, over the whole world:

and earth is my footstool; which is under his feet, is subject to him, and at his dispose, and which he makes use of at his pleasure: these things are not to be literally understood, but are images and figures, representing the majesty, sovereignty, and immensity of God; who is the maker of all things, the governor of the universe, and is above all places, and not to be contained in any:

what house will ye build me? saith the Lord; or where can any be built for him, since he already takes up the heaven and the earth? what house can be built by men, or with hands, that can hold him, or is fit for him to dwell in?

or what is the place of my rest? not in any house made with hands, but in the church among his saints, who are the temples of the living God; and this is his rest for ever, and here will he dwell, because he has chosen and desired them, and built them up for an habitation for himself, Psalm 132:13

CALVI, "49.For whereas he saith, that heaven is his seat, and the earth his footstool, it must not be so understood as if he had a body, or could be divided into parts, after the manner of men; but because he is infinity, therefore he saith that he cannot be comprehended within any spaces of place; therefore, those men are deceived who esteem God or his worship according to their own nature; and because the prophet had to deal with hypocrites, he doth not only dispute about the essence of God, but also teacheth generally, that he is far unlike to men, and that he is not moved with the vain pomp of this world as they are. Here ariseth that question also, why the prophet saith that the Lord hath no place of rest in the world, whereas, notwithstanding, the Spirit affirmeth the contrary elsewhere, “This is my rest for ever,” (Psalms 132:14.) Moreover, Isaiah doth adorn the Church with this self-same title, that it is the glorious rest of God, alluding unto the temple, I answer, that when God appointed signs of his presence ill the temple, and sacrifices in times past, he did not this to the end he might settle and fasten himself and his power there; therefore, the Israelites did wickedly, who, setting their minds wholly upon the signs, did forge to themselves an earthly God. They dealt also ungodly, who under this color took to themselves liberty to sin, as if they could readily and easily

pacify God with bare ceremonies. Thus doth the world use to mock God.

When God doth declare, by the external rites, that he will be present with his, that he may dwell in the midst of them, he commandeth them to lift up their minds, that they may seek him spiritually. Hypocrites, which are entangled in the world, will rather pluck God out of heaven; and whereas they have nothing but vain and bare figures, they are puffed up with such foolish confidence, that they pamper themselves in their sins carelessly, so, at this day, the Papists include Christ in the bread and wine in their imagination; that done, so soon as they have worshipped their idol with foolish worship, they vaunt and crack as if they were as holy as angels. We must diligently note these two vices, that men do superstitiously forge to themselves a carnal and worldly God which doth so come down unto them, that they remain still having their minds set upon the earth, and that they rise not up in mind to heaven. Again, they dream that God is pacified with frivolous obedience; hereby it cometh to pass, that they are besotted in the visible signs; and, secondly, that (465) they go about to bring God indebted to them after a childish manner, and with things which be nothing worth.

ow we understand in what sense the prophet saith that God hath no place of rest in the world. He would, indeed, that the temple should have been a sign and pledge of his presence, yet only to the godly, which did ascend into heaven in heart, which did worship him spiritually with pure faith; but he hath no place of rest with the superstitious, who, through their foolish inventions, tie him unto the elements of the world, or do erect unto him an earthly worship; neither yet with hypocrites, who are puffed up with drunken confidence, as if they had done their duty towards God well, after that they have played in their toys. In sum, the promise received by faith doth cause God to hear us in his temple, as if he were present to show forth his power in the sacraments; but unless we rise up unto him by faith, we shall have no presence of his. Hereby we may easily gather, that when he dwelleth amidst those that be his, he is neither tied to the earth, neither comprehended in any place, because they seek him spiritually in heaven.

PETT, "“The heaven is my throne,And the earth the footstool of my feet.What manner of house will you build Me? says the Lord,Or what is the place of my rest?Did not my hand make all these things?”And this is also what the prophet Isaiah 66:1-2 LXX had declared. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, who metaphorically sits in the heavens resting His feet on the earth, and can certainly not be restricted to an earthly building. For He has made all things. othing on earth can therefore be made which is suitable for Him, or become a place for Him to stay.

He could not more clearly have put the Temple in its proper place. And those who were clear-headed and thoughtful would at another time and in another place, have agreed with him, if not with the implication that he was making. For all knew that God was above all things and could not be restricted to a Temple, even the Temple

in Jerusalem. It was His ame that dwelt there. But the Temple had become a fetish and a superstition. It had become the heart of their religion, taking a place in their hearts which was beyond reason. And to have it so degraded tore at their hearts, even if it did justify what Stephen might previously have said about it.

Stephen Accuses His Accusers.

Up to this point Stephen has on the whole aligned himself with the things that he has portrayed, notice for example ‘ourfathers’ Acts 7:38-39; Acts 7:44-45. But now suddenly he changes tone in order to apply his message. From this point on he disassociates himself from his listeners, and speaks firmly of‘You’. What he now has to say he himself cannot be accused of for he has responded to the Saviour. Perhaps the change came because he sensed a changed atmosphere in the Tribunal and saw from their behaviour that they were about to silence him. Perhaps what he had described so moved his godly heart that he was horrified at the thought of what these men were guilty of. Perhaps he was simply firmly applying what he had said in order to achieve conviction of sin. Whichever way it was, his words now became pointed, personal and unavoidable.

50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]

CLARKE, "Hath not my hand made all these things? - Stephen certainly had not finished his discourse, nor drawn his inferences from the facts already stated; but it is likely that, as they perceived he was about to draw conclusions unfavourable to the temple and its ritual, they immediately raised up a clamor against him, which was the cause of the following very cutting address.

GILL, "Hath not my hand made all these things? The heaven, and the earth, and all that is in them; the Arabic version renders it, "all these creatures"; and therefore what can be made for God? or what house built for him? in Isaiah the words are read without an interrogation, and affirm that his hand had made all these things, and therefore nothing could be made for him suitable to him, by the hands of men.HERY, "

CALVI, "50.Hath not mine hand? The prophet telleth the people in these words, that God hath no need either of gold, either of precious furniture of the temple, either of the sacrifices; whereupon it followeth that his true worship is not contained

in ceremonies. For he desireth none of all these things which we offer unto him, for his own sake, but only that he may exercise us in the study of godliness; which argument is handled more at large, Psalms 1:0. For although this be a shameful foolishness to go about to feed God with sacrifices, yet unless hypocrites were drowned in the same, they would make no such account of toys, because all that is unsavory before God which dissenteth from the spiritual worship; therefore, let us know that God seeketh us and not ours, which we have only at pleasure; and hereby it appeareth also what great difference there is between true religion and the carnal inventions of men.

51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

BARES, "Ye stiff-necked - The discourse of Stephen has every appearance of having been interrupted by the clamors and opposition of the Sanhedrin. This verse has no immediate connection with what precedes, and appears to have been spoken in the midst of opposition and clamor. If we may conjecture in this case, it would seem that the Jews saw the drift of his argument; that they interrupted him; and that when the tumult had somewhat subsided, he addressed them in the language of this verse, showing them that they sustained a character precisely similar to their rebellious fathers. The word “stiff-necked” is often used in the Old Testament, Exodus 32:9; Exodus 33:3, Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6, Deuteronomy 9:13; Deuteronomy 10:16, etc. It is a figurative expression taken from oxen that are refractory, and that will not submit to be yoked. Applied to people, it means that they are stubborn, contumacious, and unwilling to submit to the restraints of Law.

Uncircumcised in heart - Circumcision was a sign of being a Jew - of acknowledging the authority of the laws of Moses. It was also emblematic of purity, and of submission to the Law of God. The expression “uncircumcised in heart” denotes those who were not willing to acknowledge that Law, and submit to it. They had hearts filled with vicious and unsubdued affections and desires.

And ears - That is, who are unwilling to “hear” what God says. Compare Leviticus

26:41; Jeremiah 9:26. See the notes on Romans 2:28-29.

Resist the Holy Ghost - You oppose the message which is brought to you by the authority of God and the inspiration of his Spirit. The message brought by Moses; by the prophets; by the Saviour; and by the apostles - all by the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit - they and their fathers opposed.

As your fathers did … - As he had specified in Acts 7:27, Acts 7:35, Acts 7:39-43.

CLARKE, "Ye stiff-necked - Σκληροτραχηλοι . A metaphor taken from untoward oxen, who cannot be broken into the yoke; and whose strong necks cannot be bended to the right or the left.

Uncircumcised in heart and ears - This was a Jewish mode of speech, often used by the prophets. Circumcision was instituted, not only as a sign and seal of the covenant into which the Israelites entered with their Maker, but also as a type of that purity and holiness which the law of God requires; hence there was an excision of what was deemed not only superfluous but also injurious; and by this cutting off, the propensity to that crime which ruins the body, debases the mind, and was generally the forerunner of idolatry, was happily lessened. It would be easy to prove this, were not the subject too delicate. Where the spirit of disobedience was found, where the heart was prone to iniquity, and the ears impatient of reproof and counsel, the person is represented as uncircumcised in those parts, because devoted to iniquity, impatient of reproof, and refusing to obey. In Pirkey Eliezer, chap. 29, "Rabbi Seira said, There are five species of uncircumcision in the world; four in man, and one in trees. Those in man are the following: -

"Uncircumcision of the Ear. Behold, their Ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken, Jeremiah 6:10."The uncircumcision of the Lips. How shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised Lips? Exodus 6:12."Uncircumcision of Heart. If then their uncircumcised Hearts be humbled, Leviticus 26:41. Circumcise therefore the Foreskin of Your Heart, Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4. For all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the Heart, Jeremiah 9:26."The uncircumcision of the Flesh. Ye shall circumcise the Flesh of your Foreskin, etc., Genesis 17:11."Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost -Because they were uncircumcised in heart, they always resisted the influences of the Holy Spirit, bringing light and conviction to their minds; in consequence of which they became hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, and neither repented at the preaching of John, nor credited the glad tidings told them by Christ and the apostles.

Because they were uncircumcised in ears, they would neither hear nor obey Moses, the prophets, Christ, nor the apostles.As your fathers did, so do ye - They were disobedient children, of disobedient parents: in all their generations they had been disobedient and perverse. This whole people, as well as this text, are fearful proofs that the Holy Spirit, the almighty energy of the living God, may be resisted and rendered of none effect. This Spirit is not sent to stocks, stones, or machines, but to human beings endued with rational souls; therefore it is not to work on them with that irresistible energy which it must exert on inert matter, in order to conquer the vis inertiae or disposition to abide eternally in a motionless state, which is the state of all inanimate beings; but it works upon understanding, will, judgment, conscience, etc., in order to enlighten, convince, and persuade. If, after all, the understanding, the eye of the mind, refuses to behold the light; the will determines to remain obstinate; the judgment purposes to draw false inferences; and the conscience hardens itself against every check and remonstrance, (and all this is possible to a rational soul, which must be dealt with in a rational way), then the Spirit of God, being thus resisted, is grieved, and the sinner is left to reap the fruit of his doings. To force the man to see, feel, repent, believe, and be saved, would be to alter the essential principles of his creation and the nature of mind, and reduce him into the state of a machine, the vis inertiae of which was to be overcome and conducted by a certain quantum of physical force, superior to that resistance which would be the natural effect of the certain quantum of the vis inertiae possessed by the subject on and by which this agent was to operate. ow, man cannot be operated on in this way, because it is contrary to the laws of his creation and nature; nor can the Holy Ghost work on that as a machine which himself has made a free agent. Man therefore may, and generally does, resist the Holy Ghost; and the whole revelation of God bears unequivocal testimony to this most dreadful possibility, and most awful truth. It is trifling with the sacred text to say that resisting the Holy Ghost here means resisting the laws of Moses, the exhortations, threatenings, and promises of the prophets, etc. These, it is true, the uncircumcised ear may resist; but the uncircumcised heart is that alone to which the Spirit that gave the laws, exhortations, promises, etc, speaks; and, as matter resists matter, so spirit resists spirit. These were not only uncircumcised in ear, but uncircumcised also in heart; and therefore they resisted the Holy Ghost, not only in his declarations and institutions, but also in his actual energetic operations upon their minds.

GILL, "Ye stiffnecked,.... Or "hard necked", the same with קשה עורף, which is a character frequently given of this people, Exodus 32:9 and elsewhere, and is expressive of their obstinacy, stubbornness and refractoriness; who would not submit their necks to the yoke of God's law, and be obedient to his commands:

and uncircumcised in heart and ears; for though they had the mark of circumcision in their flesh, of which they boasted; yet they had not the true circumcision of the heart; their hearts were not circumcised to fear and love the Lord, nor their ears to hear the word of the Lord and the Gospel of Christ; so that notwithstanding their confidence in carnal privileges, they were uncircumcised persons:

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah: and such who resist Christ's ministers, resist him, and such who resist him, may be said to resist his Holy Spirit; and the word here used signifies a rushing against, and falling upon, in a rude and hostile way, and fitly expresses their ill treatment of Christ and his ministers, by falling upon them and putting them to death: which is the resistance here designed, as appears by the following verse: so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace in conversion, when he is in men, and acts with a purpose and will to convert them; since it does not appear that he was in these persons, and was acting in them, with a design to convert them; and if he was, it wilt be difficult to prove that they so resisted, and continued to resist, as that they were not hereafter converted; since it is certain that one of them, Saul, was really and truly converted, and how many more we know not. Though it will be allowed, that the Holy Ghost in the operations of his grace upon the heart in conversion may be resisted, that is, opposed; but not so as to be overcome or be hindered in, or be obliged to cease from, the work of conversion, insomuch that may come to nothing:

as your fathers did, so do ye; or as "your fathers were, so are ye"; as they were stiffnecked, self-willed, obstinate, and inflexible, so are ye; as they were uncircumcised in heart and ears, so are ye; and as they resisted the Spirit of God in his prophets, so do ye resist him in the apostles and ministers of the Gospel.

HERY 51-53, '51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Stephen was going on in his discourse (as it should seem by the thread of it) to show that, as the temple, so the temple-service must come to an end, and it would be the glory of both to give way to that worship of the Father in spirit and in truth which was to be established in the kingdom of the Messiah, stripped of the pompous ceremonies of the old law, and so he was going to apply all this which he had said more closely to his present purpose but he perceived they could not bear it. They could patiently hear the history of the Old Testament told (it was a piece of learning which they themselves dealt much in) but if Stephen go about to tell them that their power and tyranny must come down, and that the church must be governed by a spirit of holiness and love, and heavenly-mindedness, they will not so much as give him the hearing. It is probable that he perceived this, and that they were going to silence him and therefore he breaks off abruptly in the midst of his discourse, and by that spirit of wisdom, courage, and power, wherewith he was filled, he sharply rebuked his persecutors, and exposed their true character for, if they will not admit the testimony of the gospel to them, it shall become a testimony against them.

I. They, like their fathers, were stubborn and wilful, and would not be wrought upon by the various methods God took to reclaim and reform them they were like their fathers, inflexible both to the word of God and to his providences. 1. They were stiff-necked (Acts 7:51), and would not submit their necks to the sweet and easy yoke of God's government, nor draw in it, but were like a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke or they would not bow their heads, no, not to God himself, would not do obeisance to him, would not humble themselves before him. The stiff neck is the same with the hard heart, obstinate and contumacious, and that will not yield--the general character of the Jewish nation, xxxiii. 3,5 xxxiv. 9 Deut. ix. 6,13 xxxi. 27 Ezek. ii. 4. 2. They were uncircumcised in heart and ears their hearts and ears were not devoted and given up to God, as the body of the people were in profession by the sign of circumcision: "In name and show you are circumcised Jews, but in heart and ears you are still uncircumcised heathens, and pay no more deference to the authority of your God than they do, Jeremiah 9:26. You are under the power of unmortified lusts and corruptions, which stop your ears to the voice of God, and harden your hearts to that which is both most commanding and most affecting." They had not that circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, Colossians 2:11.

II. They, like their fathers, were not only not influenced by the methods God took to reform them, but they were enraged and incensed against them: You do always resist the Holy Ghost. 1. They resisted the Holy Ghost speaking to them by the prophets, whom they opposed and contradicted, hated and ridiculed this seems especially meant here, by the following explication, Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? In persecuting and silencing those that spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they resisted the Holy Ghost. Their fathers resisted the Holy Ghost in the prophets that God raised up to them, and so did they in Christ's apostles and ministers, who spoke by the same Spirit, and had greater measures of his gifts than the prophets of the Old Testament had, and yet were more resisted. 2. They resisted the Holy Ghost striving with them by their own consciences, and would not comply with the convictions and dictates of them. God's Spirit strove with them as with the old world, but in vain they resisted him, took part with their corruptions against their convictions, and rebelled against the light. There is that in our sinful hearts that always resists the Holy Ghost, a flesh that lusts against the Spirit, and wars against his motions but in the hearts of God's elect, when the fulness of time comes, this resistance is overcomer and overpowered, and after a struggle the throne of Christ is set up in the soul, and every thought that had exalted itself against it is brought into captivity to it, 2 Corinthians 10:4,5. That grace therefore which effects this change might more fitly be called victorious grace than irresistible.

III. They, like their fathers, persecuted and slew those whom God sent unto them to call them to duty, and make them offers of mercy. 1. Their fathers had been the cruel and constant persecutors of the Old-Testament prophets (Acts 7:51): Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? More or less, one time or other, they had a blow at them all. With regard even to those that lived in the best reigns, when

the princes did not persecute them, there was a malignant party in the nation that mocked at them and abused them, and most of them were at last, either by colour of law or popular fury, put to death and that which aggravated the sin of persecuting the prophets was, that the business of the prophets they were so spiteful at was to show before of the coming of the just One, to give notice of God's kind intentions towards that people, to send the Messiah among them in the fulness of time. Those that were the messengers of such glad tidings should have been courted and caressed, and have had the preferments of the best of benefactors but, instead of this, they had the treatment of the worst of malefactors. 2. They had been the betrayers and murderers of the just One himself, as Peter had told them, Acts 3:14,15; 5:30. They had hired Judas to betray him, and had in a manner forced Pilate to condemn him and therefore it is charged upon them that they were his betrayers and murders. Thus they were the genuine seed of those who slew the prophets that foretold his coming, which, by slaying him, they showed they would have done if they had lived then and thus, as our Saviour had told them, they brought upon themselves the guilt of the blood of all the prophets. To which of the prophets would those have shown any respect who had no regard to the Son of God himself?

IV. They, like their fathers, put contempt upon divine revelation, and would not be guided and governed by it and this was the aggravation of their sin, that God had given, as to their fathers his law, so to them his gospel, in vain. 1. Their fathers received the law, and did not observe it, Acts 7:53. God wrote to them the great things of his law, after he had first spoken them to them and yet they were counted by them as a strange or foreign thing, which they were no way concerned in. The law is said to be received by the disposition of angels, because angels were employed in the solemnity of giving the law, in the thunderings and lightnings, and the sound of the trumpet. It is said to be ordained by angels (Galatians 3:19), God is said to come with ten thousand of his saints to give the law (Deuteronomy 33:2), and it was a word spoken by angels, Hebrews 2:2. This put an honour both upon the law and the Lawgiver, and should increase our veneration for both. But those that thus received the law yet kept it not, but by making the golden calf broke it immediately in a capital instance. 2. They received the gospel now, by the disposition, not of angels, but of the Holy Ghost,--not with the sound of a trumpet, but, which was more strange, in the gift of tongues, and yet they did not embrace it. They would not yield to the plainest demonstrations, any more than their fathers before them did, for they were resolved not to comply with God either in his law or in his gospel.

We have reason to think Stephen had a great deal more to say, and would have said it if they would have suffered him but they were wicked and unreasonable men with whom he had to do, that could no more hear reason than they could speak it.

JAMISO,"Ye stiffnecked … ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, etc. — It has been thought that symptoms of impatience and irritation in the audience induced Stephen to cut short his historical sketch. But as little farther light could have been thrown upon Israel‘s obstinacy from subsequent periods of the national history on the testimony of their own Scriptures, we should view this as the summing up, the brief

import of the whole Israelitish history - grossness of heart, spiritual deafness, continuous resistance of the Holy Ghost, down to the very council before whom Stephen was pleading.

CALVI, "51.Forasmuch as Stephen doth not expressly answer the points of the accusation, I am of their mind who think that he would have said more, if his oration had not been broken off with some uproar. For we know what a session of judges he had; therefore, no marvel if they enforced him to hold his peace with noise and outcries. And we see, also, that he did use long insinuation of set purpose, that he might tame and appease them who were like brute beasts most cruel; but it is likely that their madness was then incensed, when he proved that they had most wickedly corrupted the law, that the temple was polluted with their superstitions, and that there is nothing sincere amongst them; because, whilst they did stick in bare figures, they did not worship God spiritually, because they did not refer the ceremonies unto the heavenly figure; but though Stephen did not enter the cause straightway, but essayed to make their fierce minds somewhat more gentle by little and little, yet did he reason very fitly, to purge himself of the crime laid to his charge.

These two things, as we have said, were the principal points of the question, that Stephen had blasphemed God and his temple; that he went about to disannul the law. That Stephen might clear himself of both these false slanders, he began at the calling of Abraham, and declareth that the Jews excelled the Gentiles, not of their own nature, not by any right of their own, not by any merits of works, but by a free privilege, because God had adopted them in the person of Abraham. This is also very pertinent to the cause, that the covenant of salvation was made with Abraham before any temple or ceremonies were, yea, before circumcision was appointed. Of which things the Jews did so boast, that they said there was no worship of God without them, neither any holiness. After that he set down how wonderful and manifold the goodness of God was towards Abraham’s stock, and again how wickedly and frowardly they had refused, so much as in them lay, the grace of God; whereby it appeareth that it cannot be ascribed to their own merits that they are counted God’s people, but because God did choose them of his own accord, being unworthy, and did not cease to do them good, though they were most unthankful. Their lofty and proud spirits might by this means have been subdued, tamed, and humbled, that being emptied of that wind of foolish glory they might come unto the Mediator. Thirdly, he declared that the Angel was the governor and chief, in giving the law and delivering the people, and that Moses did so serve in his function, that he taught that there should come other prophets hereafter, who should, notwithstanding, have one which should be the chief of them, that he might make an end of all prophecies, and that he might bring the perfect accomplishment of them all. Whereby it is gathered that those are nothing less than Moses’ disciples, who reject that kind of doctrine which was promised and commended in the law, together with the author thereof.

Last of all, he showeth that all the old worship which was prescribed by Moses is not to be esteemed of itself, but that it ought rather to be referred to another end,

because it was made according to the heavenly pattern; and that the Jews have always been wicked interpreters of the law, because they conceived nothing but that which was earthly. Hereby is it proved that there is no injury done to the temple and the law when Christ is made, as it were, the end and truth of both, But because the state of the cause did consist chiefly in this, that the worship of God doth not properly consist in sacrifices and other things, and that all ceremonies did nothing else but shadow Christ, Stephen was purposed to stand upon this point if the Jews would have permitted him; but because, when he was come to the pith of the matter, they cannot abide to hear any more, (they were so incensed with fury,) the application of those things which he had said, unto this cause which he had in hand, is wanting. And he is enforced to use a sharp reprehension for a conclusion, Ye of an hard neck, saith he, (Exodus 32:9.) We see how soon he is offended with them with an holy zeal, but because he saw that he spake many things to small end, especially before deaf men, he breaketh off his doctrine. This is a metaphor taken from horses or oxen, which Moses useth often, when he will say that his people is a rebellious people, and disobedient to God, and also unruly.

The upbraiding which followeth was of greater force with them. Circumcision was unto them a vail and covering to cover all vices. Therefore, when he calleth them uncircumcised in heart, he doth not only mean that they are rebellious against God and stubborn, but that they were found treacherous and covenant-breakers, even in that sign whereof they did so greatly boast; and so he turneth that back most fitly to their shame, whereof they made boast to their glory. For this is all one, as if he should have said that they had broken the covenant of the Lord, so that their circumcision was void and profane. This speech is taken out of the law and the prophets. For as God hath appointed the sign, so he would have the Jews know to what end they were circumcised; to wit, that they might circumcise their hearts and all their corrupt affections to the Lord, as we read, “And now circumcise your hearts to the Lord,” Wherefore, the letter of circumcision, as Paul calleth it, is a vain visor with God, (Romans 2:28.) So, forasmuch as at this day the spiritual washing is the truth of our baptism, it is to be feared, lest that may well be objected to us, that we are not partakers of baptism, because our souls and flesh are polluted with filthiness.

Ye have always resisted. At the first Stephen vouchsafed to call these men fathers and brethren, against whom he inveigheth thus sharply, Therefore, so long as there remained any hope that they might be made more gentle, he dealt not only friendly with them, but he spake honorably unto them. ow, so soon as he espieth their desperate stubbornness, he doth not only take from them all honor, but lest he should have any fellowship with them, he speaketh unto them as unto men of another kindred. You, saith he, are like to your fathers, who have always rebelled against the Spirit of God. But he himself came of the same fathers; and yet that he may couple himself to Christ, he forgetteth his kindred, inasmuch as it was wicked. And yet for all this, he bindeth them not all in one bundle, as they say, but he speaketh unto the multitude.

And those are said to resist the Spirit who reject (466) him when he speaketh in the

prophets. either doth he speak in this place of secret revelations, wherewith God inspireth every one, but of the external ministry; which we must note diligently. He purposeth to take from the Jews all color of excuse; and, therefore, he upbraideth unto them, that they had purposely, and not of ignorance, resisted God. Whereby it appeareth what great account the Lord maketh of his word, and how reverently he will have us to receive the same. Therefore, lest, like giants, we make war against God, let us learn to hearken to the ministers by whose mouth he teacheth us.

BESO, "Acts 7:51-53. Ye stiff-necked, &c. — Stephen, finding by a confused murmur in the place that they understood whither his discourse tended, and perceiving by the eagerness of their countenances that they would soon interrupt him, applied himself more closely to his persecutors in these remarkable words, which he boldly addressed to them under the influence of the Holy Spirit, by whose direction he spoke; Ye stiff-necked — Inflexible and obstinate sinners, not bowing your necks to God’s yoke; and uncircumcised in heart and ears — So that you will not hearken to instruction, or be seriously affected with it. This they immediately showed. See Acts 7:54; Acts 7:57. So far were they from receiving the word of God with their hearts, that they would not hear it even with their ears. Ye — And your fathers; ye, as a people, in all ages; resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did — In former ages; so do ye now. This is the sum of what he had shown at large. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? — Some have inferred from this, that many writings, containing the history of these persecutions, have been destroyed by the Jews; but it seems more natural to understand the words in a limited sense, as only intimating that most of the prophets had suffered such unworthy usage. Attempts, however, were sometimes made to cut off all the prophets of the Lord at once. See 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 19:14; 2 Chronicles 36:16. They have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just or righteous One — That is, Christ; so called by way of eminence, as being alone perfectly righteous: of whom — When you ought to have heard of him with delight, and to have received him with the most humble reverence and joyful gratitude; you have been now the perfidious betrayers, and cruel murderers. Who have received the law — Delivered from Sinai with astonishing circumstances of solemnity, majesty, and terror, by the disposition, or administration of angels, and have not kept, but continually violated it — When the Son of God gave the law on mount Sinai, he was attended with thousands of angels, Galatians 3:19; Psalms 68:17. Dr. Doddridge renders the original expression, εις διαταγας αγγελων, through ranks of angels, “marshalled in solemn array upon that grand occasion:” and he thinks it is evident, from Hebrews 2:2, that God made use of the instrumentality of angels to form the voice heard at that awful time.

COFFMA, "This pronouncement was not an outburst of temper on the part of Stephen, but the announcement of God's judgment upon evil men whose day of grace had at last expired; and it served as a fitting epitaph of the Jewish temple and its evil incumbents. The stroke of divine punishment was already poised and ready and the city which were so inseparably linked to the rejection and murder of the Son of God. There was utterly no way that God would permit their institution to

thwart, in any permanent sense, the world-wide proclamation of the truth. In about thirty-five years after Stephen's speech, the armies of Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, putting to death more than a million people, and severing from Jewish control the last effective device by which they might have hoped to destroy Christianity.

COKE, "Acts 7:51-53. Ye stiff-necked, &c.— "Thus have I given you a brief account of the various periods of revelation, or the several dispensations of God to man, from the time in which Abraham, our renowned ancestor, was called out of idolatry to the knowledge of the true God, unto this very day when the kingdom of the Messiah has begun to take place—that seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth are to be blessed. And what I would have you understand by all that has been said, is this: that, in various ages and circumstances, God hath made various revelations, and appointed different positive institutions; that temporal afflictions are consistent with being in the divine favour; and that a temporal Messiah is not to be expected: but that God, who of old laid the plan for the successive dispensations, is now going to introduce the last and best of them, by erecting his spiritual kingdom under the Messiah, who is none other than Jesus of azareth. And, it is no wonder that you should treat him as you did; for you are a stubborn, obdurate people, who, though you boast of the circumcision of the flesh, yet are uncircumcised in heart and ears, and incorrigibly bent upon your own wicked ways. You even reject the very means which oughtto bring you to repentance, refusing the gracious invitations and offers of the Spirit of God, and treading in the steps of your disobedient ancestors. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? ay, they even slew many who prophesied of the coming of that divine person, the Messiah, whom Abraham, Moses, Israel, David, Solomon,—the tabernacle, the temple, the law, the prophets, and all the past dispensations, did unanimously point at, and did some way or other tend to prepare men for. And yet, notwithstanding all this vast apparatus of along succession of promises, prophesies, shadows, and representations, which God from age to age hath given, to prepare you for the reception of him;—you, who ought to have received him with the greatest affection and regard, and protected him from any injurious treatment from others:—You yourselves, I say, have basely betrayed, and wickedly murdered him. And as your sin is much greater than that of your fathers, who rejected only Moses and the prophets; you may reasonably expect (unless you speedilyand sincerely repent) that the judgments of God, which followed them, will come upon you to the uttermost. or will it be in the least wonderful, if God should depart from you, and if what you have charged me with asserting, should come to pass; namely, that your city and temple should be destroyed, and your whole nation slain, or carried away into a long and severe captivity. I have charged you with despising and murdering the Just One: but how should you be supposed to attend to one who came in so low and humble a manner, when the law, in which you so much boast,waspublishedinanawful pompous manner, amidst troops of angels;—and yet, you have not kept it." Christ was, by way of eminence, called the Just or Righteous One, as being alone perfectly righteous; Acts 7:52. See ch. Acts 3:14. Isaiah 53:11. Zechariah 9:9. It is a fine remark of Grotius, that the Sanhedrim was obliged, by

virtue of its very constitution, to guard and defend the lives of the prophets with peculiar care. How much more to protect from anyinjurious assault, so divine a messenger as Christ was; instead of which, they had not only basely deserted him, but had themselves become principals in his murder. The word διαταγας, rendered disposition, (Acts 7:53.) is a militaryword, and signifies ranks or troops; so that the passage should be read, who have received the law through ranks of angels, who were marshalled in solemn array on that great occasion. Comp. Deuteronomy 33:2 and Psalms 68:17. The sacred writer gives us an august idea of the majesty which attended the giving of the law. It was delivered with the utmost pomp and magnificence, amid the innumerable hosts of the Lord God Almighty. To what we have said on Acts 7:2 respecting this speech of St. Stephen, we will here subjoin, in brief, the sum of his discourse. "I acknowledge the glory of God revealed to the fathers, Acts 7:2,—the calling of Moses, Acts 7:34., &c.—the dignity of the law, Acts 7:8; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:44.—the holiness of this place, Acts 7:7; Acts 7:45; Acts 7:47—And indeed the law is more ancient than the temple; the promise more ancient than the law: for God shewed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children, freely, Acts 7:2., &c. Acts 7:9., &c. Acts 7:17., &c. Acts 7:32; Acts 7:34; Acts 7:45.—And they shewed faith and obedience to God, Acts 7:4; Acts 7:20; Acts 7:23 particularly by their regard for the law, Acts 7:8 and the promised land, Acts 7:16. Mean time, God never confined his presence to this one place, or to the observers of the law; for he has been acceptably worshipped before the law was given, or the temple built, and out of this land, Acts 7:2; Acts 7:9; Acts 7:33; Acts 7:44. And that our fathers, and their posterity, were not tied down to this land, their various sojournings and exiles shew, Acts 7:4., &c. Acts 7:14; Acts 7:29; Acts 7:43-44 but you and your fathers have always been evil, Acts 7:9 have withstood Moses, Acts 7:25., &c. Acts 7:39., &c. have despised the land, Acts 7:29 forsaken God, Acts 7:40., &c. superstitiously honoured the temple, Acts 7:48 resisted God and his spirit, Acts 7:25 killed the prophets, and the Messiah himself, Acts 7:52 and not kept the law for which ye contend, Acts 7:53. Therefore, God is not bound to you, much less to you alone."

COSTABLE, "By rejecting Jesus the Sanhedrin was doing just what their forefathers had done in rejecting God's other anointed servants, such as Joseph and Moses. They were "stiff-necked," a figure of speech for self-willed. Moses used this expression to describe the Israelites when they rebelled against God and worshipped the golden calf (cf. Exodus 33:5; Deuteronomy 9:13). While Stephen's hearers had undergone physical circumcision, and were proud of it, they were uncircumcised in their affections and responsiveness to God's Word. They were resisting the Holy Spirit rather than allowing Him to control (fill) them. They were similar to the apostates in Israel's past (cf. Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16) whom former prophets had rebuked (cf. Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:26). By resisting Stephen, who was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5), they were resisting the Holy Spirit.

COSTABLE 51-53, "Stephen concluded his defense by indicting his accusers. They had brought charges against him, but now he brought more serious charges against them.

In his first speech to the Sanhedrin, Peter had been quite brief and forthright (Acts 4:8-12). He had presented Jesus as the only name by which people must be saved (Acts 4:12). In his second speech to that body, Peter had again spoken briefly but more directly (Acts 5:29-32). He had charged the Sanhedrin with crucifying the Prince and Savior whom God had provided for His people (Acts 5:30-31). In this third speech before the Sanhedrin, Stephen spoke extensively giving even more condemning evidence. The Sanhedrin was guilty of unresponsiveness to God's word and of betraying and murdering the Righteous One (Acts 7:52).

PETT, "“You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”

Their attitude towards the Temple, exalting what God had not exalted, and turning from what God had provided, epitomised their whole attitude towards all that was of God. They altered what God had given. They altered His house, they changed His word, they resisted the Holy Spirit in every way, just as their fathers had before them (compare Isaiah 63:10). They were stiffnecked and their hearts were wrong (Deuteronomy 10:16) and their ears were deaf (Jeremiah 6:10). And even now they were refusing to hear the Holy Spirit as He made His new approach to men.

The rebuke might seem extreme but these were precisely the words in which the Law had addressed the people (he could not be accused of speaking against the Law here). ‘Stiffnecked’ was a favourite description by God when speaking in the Law concerning the people (Exodus 32:9; Exodus 33:3; Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6; Deuteronomy 9:13; Deuteronomy 10:16). It was thus an ‘in’ word expressing their unwillingness to listen and bend their necks to it. And the idea of being uncircumcised in heart was also Mosaic (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16, compare Jeremiah 9:26), indicating hardened and blinded hearts. In fact it was language they themselves would quite willingly have used of the people whom they taught for that reason. But it was not something they were likely to accept from Stephen. It was one thing for them to pray humbly before God of themselves in this way, and address the people in this way, but it was quite another to be told it by this Hellenistic Jewish Christian.

ELLICOTT, "(51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised . . .—The sudden change of tone from calm argument to vehement indignation cannot be thought of as spontaneous. The excitement of the Sanhedrin, perhaps of the listening crowd also, at this point, would seem to have become uncontrollable. The accused seemed to them to be repeating his offence with defiant boldness, and loud clamours took the place of whispered murmurs. Both the adjectives had been applied to the sins of the older Israel; “stiffnecked” in Exodus 33:3; Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:9; “uncircumcised” in Jeremiah 6:10. The actual phrase “uncircumcised in heart” had been used by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 44:7) of “strangers.” It was now applied to those who boasted of their exclusive privileges as Israelites, and it is scarcely possible for us to estimate the sharp incisiveness with which it, or its Aramaic equivalent, must have

fallen on the ears of the Sanhedrin. It was to them all, and more than all, that “heretic” and “infidel” have been in the controversies of Christians. Here again, in St. Paul’s “circumcision of the heart” (Romans 2:29), we have another echo from St. Stephen’s speech.

OTES, 7:51

Stephen now lashes out at these sons of the fathers who are as foolish as they were, and who continue to resist God’s plan. He has worked himself up to a point of anger as he reviews the folly of the Jews, and he expresses that anger. ame calling is not usually very productive of anything positive, and it got a negative response here also, but there are times in life when righteous anger must speak sharply.

Stephen is giving them the greatest insult possible and charges them with treason against God. See Matt. 23:32, 35, 36 and Luke 11:50. To be uncircumsizedmeant to be unsubdued to the law and the will of God.

52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—

BARES, "Which of the prophets … - The interrogative form here is a strong mode of saying that they had persecuted “all” the prophets. It was “the characteristic of the nation” to persecute the messengers of God. This is not to be taken as literally and universally true; but it was a general truth; it was the national characteristic. See the notes on Matthew 21:33-40; Matthew 23:29-35.

And they have slain them … - That is, they have slain the prophets, whose main message was that the Messiah was to come. It was a great aggravation of their offence that they put to death the messengers which foretold the greatest blessing that the nation could receive.

The Just One - The Messiah. See the notes on Acts 3:14.

Of whom ye … - You thus show that you resemble those who rejected and put to

death the prophets. You have even gone beyond them in guilt, because you have put the Messiah himself to death.

The betrayers - They are called “betrayers” here because they employed Judas to betray him - agreeable to the maxim in law, “He who does anything by another is held to have done it himself.”

CLARKE, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? - Ye have not only resisted the Holy Ghost, but ye have persecuted all those who have spoken to you in his name, and by his influence: thus ye prove your opposition to the Spirit himself, by your opposition to every thing that proceeds from him.

They have slain them, etc. - Isaiah, who showed before of the coming of Christ, the Jews report, was sawn asunder at the command of Manasseh.

The coming of the Just One - Του δικαιου, Meaning Jesus Christ; emphatically called the just or righteous person, not only because of the unspotted integrity of his heart and life, but because of his plenary acquittal, when tried at the tribunal of Pilate: I find no fault at all in him. The mention of this circumstance served greatly to aggravate their guilt. The character of Just One is applied to our Lord in three other places of Scripture: Acts 3:14; Acts 22:14; and James 5:6.

The betrayers and murderers - Ye first delivered him up into the hands of the Romans, hoping they would have put him to death; but, when they acquitted him, then, in opposition to the declaration of his innocence, and in outrage to every form of justice, ye took and murdered him. This was a most terrible charge; and one against which they could set up no sort of defense. o wonder, then, that they were instigated by the spirit of the old destroyer, which they never resisted, to add another murder to that of which they had been so recently guilty.

GILL, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?.... Either by reviling and speaking all manner of evil of them, Matthew 5:11 or by killing them, Matthew 23:31 and they have slain them; as Isaiah, Zachariah, and others:

which showed before of the coming of the just one; of Jesus the Messiah, whose character in the prophecies of the Old Testament is righteous servant, righteous branch, just, and having salvation; and whom Stephen styles so partly on account of the holiness of his nature, and the innocence and harmlessness of his life; and partly because he is the author of righteousness, and the end of the law for it to all that believe; of whose coming in the flesh all the prophets more or less spoke: and this being good news, and glad tidings, made the sin of the Jewish fathers the greater, in putting them to death, as the innocent character of Christ was an aggravation of the Jews' sin, in murdering of him, as it follows:

of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers; Judas, one of their nation, betrayed him into the hands of the chief priests and elders; and they betrayed, or delivered him into the hands of Pontius Pilate to be condemned to death, which they

greatly importuned, and would not be satisfied without; and therefore are rightly called the murderers, as well as the betrayers of him.

JAMISO,"Which of, etc. — Deadly hostility to the messengers of God, whose high office it was to tell of “the Righteous One,” that well-known prophetic title of Messiah (Isaiah 53:11; Jeremiah 23:6, etc.), and this consummated by the betrayal and murder of Messiah Himself, on the part of those now sitting in judgment on the speaker, are the still darker features of the national character depicted in these withering words.

CALVI, "52.Which of the prophets? Forasmuch as they ought not to bear their fathers’ fault, Stephen seemeth to deal unjustly, in that he reckoneth this amongst their faults unto whom he speaketh; but he had just causes so to do. First, because they did vaunt that they were Abraham’s holy progeny, it was worth the labor to show unto them how great vanity that was, as if Stephen should say, that there is no cause why they should vaunt of their stock, forasmuch as they come of those who were wicked murderers of the prophets. So that he toucheth that glancingly which is more plainly set down by the prophets, that they are not the children of prophets, but a degenerate and bastardly issue, the seed of Canaan, etc. Which thing we may at this day object to the Papists, when as they so highly extol their fathers. Furthermore, this serveth to amplify withal, whereas he saith that it is no new thing for them to resist the truth, but that they have this wickedness, as it were, by inheritance from their fathers. Furthermore, it was requisite for Stephen by this means to pluck from their faces the visor of the Church, wherewith they burdened him. (467) This was an unmeet prejudice against the doctrine of the gospel, in that they boasted that they are the Church of God, and did challenge this title (468) by long succession. Therefore, Stephen preventeth them on the contrary, and proveth that their fathers did, no less than they, rage against the prophets, through wicked contempt and hatred of sound doctrine. Lastly, this is the continual custom of the Scripture to gather the fathers and children together (469) under the same guiltiness, seeing they pollute themselves with the same offenses, and that famous sentence of Christ answereth thereto, “Fulfill the measure of your fathers, until the just blood come upon you, from Abel unto Zacharias.”

Who have foretold. Hereby we gather that this was the drift of all the prophets, to direct their nation unto Christ, as he is the end of the law, (Romans 10:4.) It were too long to gather all the prophecies wherein the coming of Christ was foretold. Let it suffice to know this generally, that it was the common office of all the prophets to promise salvation by the grace of Christ. Christ is called in this place the Just, not only to note his innocency, but of the effect, because it is proper to him to appoint justice in the world. And even in this place doth Stephen prove that the Jews were altogether unworthy of the benefit of redemption, because the fathers did not only refuse that in times past, which was witnessed unto them by the prophets, but they did also cruelly murder the messengers of grace, and their children endeavored to extinguish the author of righteousness and salvation which was offered unto them. By which comparison Christ teacheth that the wicked conspiracy of his enemies was an heap of all iniquities.

COSTABLE, "The Sanhedrin members were behaving just as their forefathers had. ote that Stephen had previously associated himself with "our fathers" (Acts 7:2; Acts 7:11-12; Acts 7:15; Acts 7:19; Acts 7:39; Acts 7:44-45), but now he disassociated himself from the Sanhedrin by referring to "your fathers." "Our fathers" were the trusting and obeying patriarchs, but "your fathers" were the unresponsive apostates. The Jews' ill treatment of their prophets was well known and self-admitted (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:15-16; ehemiah 9:26; Jeremiah 2:30). They had consistently resisted God's messengers to them, even killing the heralds of God's Righteous One (cf. Acts 3:14; 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 19:14; ehemiah 9:26; Jeremiah 26:20-24; Luke 6:23; Luke 11:49; Luke 13:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:15; Hebrews 11:36-38). Stephen said the Sanhedrin members were responsible for the betrayal and murder of that one, Jesus.

PETT, "“Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who showed before of the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers,”

ow Stephen gets to the heart of the matter. Their fathers had revealed what was in their uncircumcised hearts by persecuting the prophets. Indeed, they had bared their hearts by even killing some who had proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Righteous One (Isaiah who according to their tradition was sawn in half in the reign of Mansseh, was probably especially in mind). They had revealed that they had not wanted the Righteous One to come if He was as the prophets had said. And now they themselves had gone even further and had betrayed and murdered the Righteous One Himself. They were all of a piece. It must be seen as quite possible at this point that Stephen in his faith and enthusiasm still hoped that they would repent if he pressed them hard enough.

Apart from the last all these accusations had been made against the people of Israel before by their own teachers (2 Chronicles 36:15-16; ehemiah 9:26; Jeremiah 2:30) and by Jesus Himself (Matthew 23:29-31; Matthew 23:37; Luke 11:47-50; Luke 13:34; Mark 12:1-10). As for the killing of the Righteous One Himself Peter had previously made that very clear (Acts 2:23; Acts 3:14-15; Acts 5:28). The charges were not new. They simply rankled.

ELLICOTT, "(52) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?—St. Stephen echoes, as it were, our Lord’s own words (Matthew 5:12; Luke 13:34). Every witness for the truth had in his day had to suffer. The prophet was not only “without honour,” but was exposed to shame, treated as an enemy, condemned to death. 1 Thessalonians 2:15, perhaps, reproduces the same fact, but more probably refers to the sufferings of the prophets of the Christian Church who were treated as their predecessors had been.

The coming of the Just One.—The name does not appear to have been one of the

received titles of the expected Messiah, but may have been suggested by Isaiah 11:4-5. It seems to have been accepted by the Church of Jerusalem, and in 1 John 2:1, and, perhaps, in James 5:6, we find examples of its application. The recent use of it by Pilate’s wife (Matthew 27:19) may have helped to give prominence to it. He who had been condemned as a malefactor was emphatically, above all the sons of men, the “righteous,” the “Just One.”

The betrayers and murderers.—The two words emphasise, the first the act of the Sanhedrin and the people, and secondly, the persistence with which they urged on Pilate the sentence of death, and which made them not merely accessories, but principals in the deed of blood.

OTES, 7:52

He asked them to look at their own history and select one of God sent to them who was received and not persecuted. They could find none, for God’s people persecuted all whom he sent. I Kings 19:10 and II Chron. 36:16. You killed all who predicted the coming of Messiah and so it is not surprising that you also killed the Messiah.

53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

BARES, "Who have received the law - The Law of Moses, given on Mount Sinai.

By the disposition of angels - There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to this phrase, εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων eis diatagas angelōnThe word translated “disposition” does not occur elsewhere in the ew Testament. It properly means the “constituting” or “arranging” of an army; disposing it into ranks and proper divisions. Hence, it has been supposed to mean that the Law was given “amidst” the various ranks of angels, being present to witness its promulgation. Others suppose that the angels were employed as agents or instruments to communicate the Law. All that the expression fairly implies is the former; that the Law was given amidst the attending ranks of angels, as if they were summoned to witness the pomp and ceremony of giving “law” to an entire people, and through them to an entire world. It should be added, moreover, that the Jews applied the word “angels” to any messengers of God; to fire, and tempest, and wind, etc. And all that Stephen means

here may be to express the common Jewish opinion that God was attended on this occasion by the heavenly hosts, and by the symbols of his presence, fire, and smoke, and tempest. Compare Psalm 104:4; Psalm 68:17. Other places declare that the Law was spoken by an angel, one eminent above all attending angels, the special messenger of God. See the notes on Acts 7:38. It is plain that Stephen spoke only the common sentiment of the Jews. Thus, Herod is introduced by Josephus (Antiq., book 15, chapter 5, section 3) as saying, “We have learned in God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our Law by angels,” etc. In the eyes of the Jews, it justly gave increased majesty and solemnity to the Law, that it had been given in so grand and imposing circumstances. It greatly aggravated their guilt that, notwithstanding this, they had not kept it.

CLARKE, "By the disposition of angels - Εις διαταγας αγγελων . After all that has been said on this difficult passage, perhaps the simple meaning is, that there were ranks, διαταγαι, of angels attending on the Divine Majesty when he gave the law: a circumstance which must have added greatly to the grandeur and solemnity of the occasion; and to this Psalm 68:17; seems to me most evidently to allude: The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even many thousands of angels: the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the holy place. It was not then by the mouths nor by the hands of angels, as prime agents, that Moses, and through him the people, received the law; but God himself gave it, accompanied with many thousands of those glorious beings. As it is probable they might be assisting in this most glorious solemnity, therefore St. Paul might say, Galatians 3:19, that it was ordained by angels, διαταγεις δι 'αγγελων, in the hand of a Mediator. And as they were the only persons that could appear, for no man hath seen God at any time, therefore the apostle might say farther, (if indeed he refers to the same transaction, see the note there), the word spoken by angels was steadfast, Hebrews 2:2. But the circumstances of this case are not sufficiently plain to lead to the knowledge of what was done by the angels in this most wonderful transaction; only we learn, from the use made of this circumstance by St. Stephen, that it added much to the enormity of their transgression, that they did not keep a law, in dispensing of which the ministry of angels had been employed. Some think Moses, Aaron, and Joshua are the angels here intended; and others think that the fire, light, darkness, cloud and thick darkness were the angels which Jehovah used on this occasion, and to which St. Stephen refers; but neither of these senses appears sufficiently natural, and particularly the latter.

GILL, "Who have received the law, by the disposition of angels,.... Who attended the angel that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai, Acts 7:38 who is the head of all principality and power, and whom he might make use of in giving the law to Moses: hence the law is said to be ordained by angels, in the hand of a Mediator, and is called the word spoken by angels, Galatians 3:19 and certain it is, that there were great numbers of angels on Mount Sinai, when the law was given, Deuteronomy 33:2 And so the Jews sayF13, that

"when the holy blessed God descended on Mount Sinai, there came down with him many companies of angels, Michael and his company, and Gabriel and his company'

Indeed they often sayF14,

"the law was not given to the ministering angels:'

their meaning is, it was not given to them to observe and keep, because there are some things in it, which do not concern angels; but then it might be given to them to deliver to Moses, who gave it to the Israelites, and so may be said to receive it by the ministration of angels, through the hands of Moses. And now the law being given and received in so grand a manner, was an aggravation of the sin of the Jews in violating it, as it follows:

and have not kept it; but broke it in innumerable instances, and scarce kept it in any; for no man can keep it perfectly.

JAMISO,"Who have received the law by the disposition — “at the appointment” or “ordination,” that is, by the ministry.

of angels, and have not kept it — This closing word is designed to shut up those idolizers of the law under the guilt of high disobedience to it, aggravated by the august manner in which they had received it.

CALVI, "53.Who have received the law. They called that fury wherewith they raged against Stephen zeal of the law, as if he had been a forsaker of the law, and a revolt (470) and had enforced others to fall away in like sort. Although he was determined to clear himself of this false accusation, yet he did not go through with his answer. For he could not be heard, and it was to no end to speak to deaf men. Therefore, he is content, at a word, to take from them their false color and pretense. It is evident, saith he, that you lie, when you pretend the zeal of the law, which you transgress and break without ceasing; and as he objected unto them in the words next going before, the treacherous murder of the Just, so now he upbraideth unto them their revolting from the law. Some man will say that Stephen’s cause is no whit bettered hereby, because the Jews break the law. But as we have already said, Stephen doth not so chide them, as if his defense did principally consist in this issue, but that they may not flatter themselves in their false boasting. For hypocrites must be handled thus, who will, notwithstanding, seem to be most earnest defenders of God’s glory, though indeed they condemn him carelessly. And here is also a fit antistrophe, because they made semblance that they received the law which was committed to them, which was, notwithstanding, reproachfully despised by them.

In the dispositions of angels It is word for word, into the dispositions, but it is all one. Furthermore, we need not seek any other interpreter of this saying than Paul, who saith that the law was disposed or ordained by angels, (Galatians 3:16;) for he useth the participle there whereof this noun is derived. And his meaning is, that the angels were the messengers of God, and his witnesses in publishing the law, that the authority thereof might be firm and stable.

Therefore, forasmuch as God did call the angels to be, as it were, solemn witnesses when he gave the Jews his law, the same angels shall be witnesses of their unfaithfulness. (471) And to this end doth Stephen make mention of the angels, that he may accuse the Jews in presence of them, and prove them guilty, because they have transgressed the law. Hereby we may gather what shall become of the despisers of the gospel, which doth so far excel the law, that it doth, after a sort, darken the glory thereof, as Paul teacheth, (2 Corinthians 3:0.)

COSTABLE, "Their guilt was all the greater because they had received God's law, which angels had delivered (Deuteronomy 33:2 LXX cf. Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2), but they had disobeyed it. They were the real blasphemers (defiant sinners). Stephen, as an angel (cf. Acts 6:15), had brought them new insight, but they were about to reject it too.

The primary theme of Stephen's speech is that Israel's leaders had failed to recognize that God had told His people ahead of time that they could expect a change. They had falsely concluded that the present state of Judaism was the final stage in God's plan of revelation and redemption. We too can become so preoccupied with the past and the present that we forget what God has revealed about the future. We need to keep looking ahead.

"He [Stephen] saw that the men who played a really great part in the history of Israel were the men who heard God's command, 'Get thee out,' and who were not afraid to obey it [cf. Acts 7:3; Acts 7:15; Acts 7:29; Acts 7:36; Acts 7:45]. The great men were the men who were prepared to make the adventure of faith. With that adventurous spirit Stephen implicitly contrasted the spirit of the Jews of his own day, whose one desire was to keep things as they were and who regarded Jesus and His followers as dangerous innovators." [ote: Barclay, p. 53.]A second related theme is that Israel's leaders had departed from God's priorities to give prominence to secondary issues for their own glory (the Holy Land, Moses, the temple). We also can think too highly of our own country, our leaders, and our place of worship.

Another related theme, the theme of Israel's rejection of the Lord's anointed servants, also runs through Stephen's speech. Jesus was another of God's anointed servants. The Jews had dealt with Him as they had dealt with the other anointed servants whom God had sent them. They could expect to experience the consequences of their rejection as their forefathers had. We need to observe the pattern of humiliation followed by glorification that has marked the careers of God's servants in the past and to anticipate that pattern in our own careers.

". . . it [Stephen's defense] is not designed to secure Stephen's acquittal of the charges brought against him, but to proclaim the essence of the new faith. It has been well said that, although the name of Christ is never mentioned, Stephen is all the while 'preaching Jesus'. He is demonstrating that everything in Israel's past history and experience pointed forward to God's culminating act in his plan for the

redemption of the world in sending the Christ. The witness of Abraham, Joseph, Moses and David in one way or another underlined the transitory nature of existing Jewish institutions and the hollowness of Jewish claims to have the monopoly of the way to salvation. The presence of God could not be restricted to one Holy Land or confined in one holy Temple, nor could his Law be atrophied in the ceremonialism of the Sadducees or the legalism of the Pharisees." [ote: eil, p. 116.]Stephen's speech demonstrated remarkable insight, but this was more than mere human genius because the Holy Spirit was controlling (filling) him (Acts 6:5; Acts 6:10). While it is easy to overstate Stephen's importance, He seems to have understood the changes that would take place because of the Jews' rejection of Jesus. He did so earlier and more clearly than some of the other leaders of the Jerusalem church such as Peter (cf. ch. 10). He appears to have been an enlightened thinker whom God enabled to see the church's future in relationship to Israel as few did this early in the church's history. Many Hebrew Jewish Christians-who still observed the Jewish hour of prayer, feasts, and temple ritual-probably did not appreciate this relationship. Stephen was in a real sense the forerunner of Paul who became the champion of God's plan to separate Christianity from Judaism.

"So he [Stephen] perceived, and evidently was the first to perceive clearly, the incidental and temporary character of the Mosaic Law with the temple and all its worship. This was the first germ of doctrine which S. Paul was afterward to carry out to its full logical and far-reaching consequences, viz. the perfect equality of Jew and Gentile in the church of God ..."S. Stephen then is the connecting link between S. Peter and S. Paul-a link indispensable to the chain. Stephen, and not Gamaliel, was the real master of S. Paul.... For 'the work' of Stephen lasts on till chapter xii (see xi 19), and then it is taken up by his greater pupil and successor-Paul." [ote: Rackham, p. 87-88.]There have been scholars who believed that Stephen probably did not understand the issues behind the cause for which he died. [ote: E.g., Adolph Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1:50.] However a careful study of his speech reveals that he did.

PETT, "“You who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and did not keep it.”

But, he is saying, it is not really surprising that they had rejected the Righteous One, for these are the ones who had been privileged to receive the Law as ordained by angels, and still had not kept it. The two ideas went together. The one was preparing for the other, and their failure to do the one resulted in the other.

‘And did not keep it.’ Thus from this all should know who really sought to change the Law of Moses. In actual fact the Pharisees to a man would have admitted to each other that they did not keep the Law fully. It was not the fact of it that they would resent. It was the implication that they were not Law-keepers. Why they struggled to keep it with might and main. But as Jesus had pointed out, that was not God’s Law, it was the Law as determined by man, the Law ‘made by hands’.

The idea that the Law was ordained by and mediated by angels was orthodox Jewish belief, based on their view that the transcendent God could not deal with man directly. This was a basic contradiction to how they actually, (as opposed to theologically), viewed the Temple. Actually they saw the Temple and its ordinances as binding God by their rituals, even though theoretically they did see Him as transcendent. For the idea of angel mediation compare Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2.

Luke probably here expects us to relate this statement to Stephen’s face being like that of an angel when he began his defence (Acts 6:15). They had not listened to angel’s then, they did not listen to God’s messenger now.

ELLICOTT, "(53) Who have received . . .—More accurately, who received.

By the disposition of angels.—Better, as ordained of angels; or, more literally, as ordinances of angels. The Greek preposition cannot possibly have the meaning of “by.” The phrase expressed the current Jewish belief that angels were the intermediate agents through whom Israel received the Law; that it was their voice that was heard on Sinai. Here also St. Paul, in speaking of the Law as “ordained by angels” (Galatians 3:19), reproduced St. Stephen. Comp. also Hebrews 2:2 and Jos. Ant. xv. 4, § 3, for like statements. The idea rested mainly on the LXX. version of Deuteronomy 33:2, “on His right hand were angels with Him” and “the thousands of angels” as connected with Sinai in Psalms 68:17.

OTES, 7:53

Alexander, “The obvious meaning of the verse is that the Jews, as a nation, had betrayed the highest trust, and proved themselves unworthy of the greatest honor ever granted to a people.”

Angels-most see the angel as the second person of the godhead or the pre-incarnate Christ. If so, then the O. T. as well as . T. came to man through Christ the word of God.

The Stoning of Stephen

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.

BARES, "They were cut to the heart - They were exceedingly enraged and indignant. The whole course of the speech had been such as to excite their anger, and now they could restrain themselves no longer.

They gnashed on him … - Expressive of the bitterness and malignity of their feeling.

GILL, "When they heard these things,.... How that Abraham, the father of them, was called before he was circumcised, or the law was given to Moses, or the temple was built, which they were so bigoted to, and charged with speaking blasphemously of; and how that Joseph and Moses were very ill treated by the Jewish fathers, which seemed to resemble the usage Christ and his apostles met with from them; and how their ancestors behaved in the wilderness when they had received the law, and what idolatry they fell into there, and in after times; and how that though there was a temple built by Solomon, yet the Lord was not confined to it, nor would he dwell in it always; and especially when they heard him calling them a stiffnecked people, and uncircumcised in heart and ears; saying, that they persecuted and slew the prophets, and were the betrayers and murderers of an innocent person; and notwithstanding all their zeal for the law, and even though it was ministered to them by angels, yet they did not observe it themselves:

they were cut to the heart; as if they had been sawn asunder; they were filled with anguish, with great pain and uneasiness; they were full of wrath and madness, and could neither bear themselves nor him:

and they gnashed on him with their teeth: being enraged at him, and full of fury and indignation against him.

HERY, "Stephen's Martyrdom Stephen's Dying Prayer.54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

We have here the death of the first martyr of the Christian church, and there is in this story a lively instance of the outrage and fury of the persecutors (such as we may expect to meet with if we are called out to suffer for Christ), and of the courage and comfort of the persecuted, that are thus called out. Here is hell in its fire and darkness, and heaven in its light and brightness and these serve as foils to set off each other. It is not here said that the votes of the council were taken upon his case, and that by the majority he was found guilty, and then condemned and ordered to be stoned to death, according to the law, as a blasphemer but, it is likely, so it was, and that it was not by the violence of the people, without order of the council, that he was put to death for here is the usual ceremony of regular executions--he was cast out of the city, and the hands of the witnesses were first upon him.

Let us observe here the wonderful discomposure of the spirits of his enemies and persecutors, and the wonderful composure of his spirit.

I. See the strength of corruption in the persecutors of Stephen--malice in perfection, hell itself broken loose, men become incarnate devils, and the serpent's seed spitting their venom.

1. When they heard these things they were cut to the heart (Acts 7:54), dieprionto, the same word that is used Hebrews 11:37, and translated they were sawn asunder. They were put to as much torture in their minds as ever the martyrs were put to in their bodies. They were filled with indignation at the unanswerable arguments that Stephen urged for their conviction, and that they could find nothing to say against them. They were not pricked to the heart with sorrow, as those were Acts 2:37, but cut to the heart with rage and fury, as they themselves were, Acts 5:33. Stephen rebuked them sharply, as Paul expresses it (Titus 1:13), apotomos--cuttingly, for they were cut to the heart by the reproof. ote, Rejecters of the gospel and opposers of it are really tormentors to themselves. Enmity to God is a heart-cutting thing faith and love are heart-healing. When they heard how he that looked like an angel before he began his discourse talked like an angel, like a messenger from heaven, before he concluded it, they were like a wild bull in a net, full of the fury of the Lord, (Isaiah 51:20), despairing to run down a cause so bravely pleaded, and yet resolved not to yield to it.

2. They gnashed upon him with their teeth. This denotes, (1.) Great malice and rage against him. Job complained of his enemy that he gnashed upon him with his teeth, Job 16:9. The language of this was, Oh that we had of his flesh to eat! Job 31:31. They grinned at him, as dogs at those they are enraged at and therefore Paul, cautioning against those of the circumcision, says, Beware of dogs, Philippians 3:2. Enmity at the saints turns men into brute beasts. (2.) Great vexation within themselves they fretted to see in him such manifest tokens of a divine power and presence, and it vexed them to the heart. The wicked shall see it and be grieved, he shall gnash with his teeth and melt away, Psalm 112:10. Gnashing with the teeth is often used to express the horror and torments of the damned. Those that have the malice of hell cannot but have with it some of the pains of hell.

CALVI, "54.When they heard. The beginning of the action had in it some color of judgment; but at length the judges cannot bridle their fury. First, they interrupt him with murmuring and noise, now they break out into envious and deadly cryings, (472) lest they should hear any one word. Afterward they hale the holy man (out of the city,) that they may put him to death. And Luke expresseth properly what force Satan hath to drive forward the adversaries of the word. When he saith that they burst asunder inwardly, he noteth that they were not only angry, but they were also stricken with madness. Which fury breaketh out into the gnashing of the teeth, as a violent fire into flame. The reprobate, who are at Satan’s commandment, must needs be thus moved with the hearing of the word of God; and this is the state of the gospel, it driveth hypocrites into madness who might seem before to be modest, as if a drunken man who is desirous of sleep be suddenly awakened. Therefore, Simeon assigneth this to Christ, as proper to him, to disclose the thoughts of many hearts, (Luke 2:35.) Yet, notwithstanding, this ought not to be ascribed to the doctrine of salvation, whose end is rather this, to tame men’s minds to obey God after that it hath subdued them. But so soon as Satan hath possessed their minds, if they be urged, their ungodliness will break out. Therefore, this is an accidentary [accidental] evil; yet we are taught by these examples, that we must not look that the word of God should draw all men unto a sound mind.

Which doctrine is very requisite for us unto constancy. Those which are teachers cannot do their duty as they ought, but they must set themselves against the contemners of God. And forasmuch as there are always some wicked men, which set light by the majesty of God, they must ever now and then have recourse unto this vehemency of Stephen. For they may not wink when God’s honor is taken from him. And what shall be the end thereof? Their ungodliness shall be the more incensed, so that we shall seem to pour oil into the fire, (as they say.) But whatsoever come of it, yet must we not spare the wicked, but we must keep them down mightily, although they could pour out all the furies of hell. And it is certain that those which will flatter the wicked do not respect the fruit, (473) but are faint-hearted through fear of danger. But as for us, howsoever we have no such success as we could wish, let us know that courage in defending the doctrine of godliness is a sweet-smelling sacrifice to God.

BARCLAY, "THE FIRST OF THE MARTYRS (Acts 7:54-60; Acts 8:1)A speech like this could only have one end; Stephen had courted death and death came. But Stephen did not see the faces distorted with rage. His gaze had gone beyond time and he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. When he said this it seemed to them only the greatest of blasphemies; and the penalty for blasphemy was stoning to death (Deuteronomy 13:6 ff.). It is to be noted that this was no judicial trial. It was a lynching, because the Sanhedrin had no right to put anyone to death.

The method of stoning was as follows. The criminal was taken to a height and thrown down. The witnesses had to do the actual throwing down. If the fall killed

the man good and well; if not, great boulders were hurled down upon him until he died.

There are in this scene certain notable things about Stephen. (i) We see the secret of his courage. Beyond all that men could do to him he saw awaiting him the welcome of his Lord. (ii) We see Stephen following his Lord's example. As Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of his executioners (Luke 23:34) so did Stephen. When George Wishart was to be executed, the executioner hesitated. Wishart came to him and kissed him. "Lo," he said, "here is a token that I forgive thee." The man who follows Christ the whole way will find strength to do things which it seems humanly impossible to do. (iii) The dreadful turmoil finished in a strange peace. To Stephen came the peace which comes to the man who has done the right thing even if the right thing kills him.

The first half of the first verse of chapter 8 goes with this section. Saul has entered on the scene. The man who was to become the apostle to the Gentiles thoroughly agreed with the execution of Stephen. But as Augustine said, "The Church owes Paul to the prayer of Stephen." However hard he tried Saul could never forget the way in which Stephen had died. The blood of the martyrs even thus early had begun to be the seed of the Church.

BESO, "Acts 7:54-56. When they heard these things — These plain, and undeniable, and alarming truths; they were cut to the heart — Or sawn asunder, the original word being the same that is used chap. Acts 5:33. And not permitting him to proceed any further, in a transport of rage, they gnashed on him with their teeth — As if they would have devoured him alive. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost —And therefore no way terrified with the foresight of the evil which appeared to be determined against him; looked up steadfastly into heaven — From whence alone he could expect help or mercy; and saw the glory of God — Prepared for him; and Jesus standing on the right hand of God — Risen up from the throne of his glory, (for he is generally represented as sitting,) to afford help to his distressed servant, and ready to receive him. Doubtless many other martyrs, as Mr. Addison has observed, when called to suffer the last extremities, had extraordinary assistances of a similar kind; otherwise frail mortality could not have endured the torments under which they rejoiced, and sometimes preached Christ, to the conversion of spectators, and, in some instances, of their guards and tormentors.

COFFMA, "Gnashed on him with their teeth ... does not mean that they bit or chewed upon Stephen's flesh but that they were so infuriated that they ground their teeth together in a rage.

Saw the glory of God ... It was fitting indeed that God should have given to the first Christian martyr such a glorious vision of eternal realities.

Jesus standing on the right hand of God ... As Hervey said:

Sitting at the right hand of God is the usual attitude ascribed to our Lord in token of his victorious rest, and waiting for the day of judgment; but here he is seen standing, as rising to welcome his faithful martyr, and to place on his head the crown of life.[19]Son of man ... Only here, in the word of God, is there the use of this title for Jesus except in his own words concerning himself.

EDOTE:

[19] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 221.

COSTABLE, ""Cut to the quick" is a figure of speech that describes being painfully wounded. Stephen's charge of always resisting God's Spirit convicted and offended the members of the Sanhedrin. They retaliated fiercely. Gnashing (grinding) the teeth pictures brutal antagonism.

"The possibilities are that what took place was a spontaneous act of mob violence or that Stephen was legally executed by the Sanhedrin, either because there was some kind of special permission from the Romans or because there was no Roman governor at the time and advantage was taken of the interregnum. The first of these possibilities is the more likely." [ote: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 148.]

PETT, "ow when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.’

The verbs here are very powerful. ‘Cut to the heart’ indicates that his words had gone home, for good or bad. They were moved to the very depths of their beings. Every nerve was stretched. And it was revealed by their outward expression and behaviour, for the gnashing of their teeth is especially descriptive. They were like wild beasts eager to savage their prey. Psalms 2:1 could easily be cited here, for they were certainly ‘raging’. And it would have been very apposite as the next verse reveals.

ELLICOTT, "54) They were cut to the heart.—Literally, were sawn through and through. (See ote on Acts 5:33.) The word describes a keener pang than the “pricked” of Acts 2:37, producing, not repentance, but the frenzy of furious anger.

They gnashed on him with their teeth.—The passage is worth noting as the only example of the literal use of a phrase with which we are so familiar in its figurative application (Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:42, et al.). Here it clearly expresses brute passion rather than despair. At this point rage and fury—the fury caused by the consciousness that the stern words are true—had become altogether beyond control. They had passed beyond articulate speech into the inarticulate utterances of animal ferocity.

OTES, 7:54

Attack a religious man by showing him that his religion is hypocritical and you stir up the hottest of human emotions. As blind as they were they see what Stephen was getting at and they hated it. Silence is a great escape root. If Jeremiah had been quiet he could have escaped the dungeon, and so the same goes for John the Baptist who could have also kept his head. Speaking the truth is a very dangerous business. Lying can bring the wrath of God on you, but speaking the truth can bring the wrath of man on you.

55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

BARES, "Full of the Holy Ghost - See the notes on Acts 2:4.

Looked up stedfastly - Fixed his eyes intently on heaven. Foreseeing his danger, and the effect his speech had produced; seeing that there was no safety in the Great Council of the nation, and no prospect of justice at their hands, he cast his eyes to heaven and sought protection there. When dangers threaten us, our hope of safety lies in heaven. When people threaten our persons, reputation, or lives, it becomes us to fix our eyes on the heavenly world; and we shall not look in vain.

And saw the glory of God - This phrase is commonly used to denote the visible symbols of God. It means some magnificent representation; a splendor, or light, that is the appropriate exhibition of the presence of God, Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24:30. See the notes on Luke 2:9. In the case of Stephen there is every indication of a vision or supernatural representation of the heavenly objects; something in advance of mere “faith” such as dying Christians now have. What was its precise nature we have no means of ascertaining. Objects were often represented to prophets by “visions”; and probably something similar is intended here. It was such an elevation of view - such a representation of truth and of the glory of God, as to be denoted by the word “see”; though it is not to be maintained that Stephen really saw the Saviour with the bodily eye.

On the right hand of God - That is, exalted to a place of honor and power in the heavens. See the Matthew 26:64 note; Acts 2:25 note.

GILL, "But he being full of the Holy Ghost,.... That is, Stephen, as Beza's ancient copy, and some others express it; and so the Ethiopic version; the Syriac version reads, "full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost", as in Acts 6:5 and so some copies; being under the influences of the Spirit of God, and filled with his divine comforts, and strong in the faith of Jesus Christ, and having a holy boldness, courage, and intrepidity of mind; instead of being discouraged and dejected, of being cast down in his spirits, and looking down upon the ground, he

looked up steadfastly to heaven; where he desired to be, and hoped and believed he should be; and from whence he knew his help came, and which he might now implore, as well as forgiveness for his enemies.

And saw the glory of God; not the essential glory of God, but some extraordinary light and brightness, which was a token and representation of him:

and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; of that glory which was a Symbol of him: Jesus being risen from the dead, and ascended on high, was set at the right hand of God, in human nature, and so was visible to the corporeal eye of Stephen; whose visual faculty was so extraordinarily enlarged and assisted, as to reach the body of Christ in the third heavens; where he was seen by him standing, to denote his readiness to assist him, and his indignation at his enemies.

HERY, "3. They cried out with a loud voice (Acts 7:57), to irritate and excite one another, and to drown the noise of the clamours of their own and one another's consciences when he said, I see heaven opened, they cried with a loud voice, that he might not be heard to speak. ote, It is very common for a righteous cause, particularly the righteous cause of Christ's religion, to be attempted to be run down by noise and clamour what is wanting in reason is made up in tumult, and the cry of him that ruleth among fools, while the words of the wise are heard in quiet. They cried with a loud voice, as soldiers when they are going to engage in battle, mustering up all their spirit and vigour for this desperate encounter.

4. They stopped their ears, that they might not hear their own noisiness or perhaps under pretence that they could not bear to hear his blasphemies. As Caiaphas rent his clothes when Christ said, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man coming in glory (Matthew 26:64,65), so here these stopped their ears when Stephen said, I now see the Son of man standing in glory, both pretending that what was spoken was not to be heard with patience. Their stopping their ears was, (1.) A manifest specimen of their wilful obstinacy they were resolved they would not hear what had a tendency to convince them, which was what the prophets often complained of: they were like the deaf adder, that will not hear the voice of the charmer, Psalm 58:4,5. (2.) It was a fatal omen of that judicial hardness to which God would give them up. They stopped their ears, and then God, in a way of righteous judgment, stopped them.

This was the work that was now in doing with the unbelieving Jews: Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy thus was Stephen's character of them answered, You uncircumcised in heart and ears.

5. They ran upon him with one accord--the people and the elders of the people, judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and spectators, they all flew upon him, as beasts upon their prey. See how violent they were, and in what haste--they ran upon him, though there was no danger of his outrunning them and see how unanimous they were in this evil thing--they ran upon him with one accord, one and all, hoping thereby to terrify him, and put him into confusion, envying him his composure and comfort in soul, with which he wonderfully enjoyed himself in the midst of this hurry they did all they could to ruffle him.

6. They cast him out of the city, and stoned him, as if he were not worthy to live in Jerusalem nay, not worthy to live in this world, pretending herein to execute the law of Moses (Leviticus 24:16), He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, all the congregation shall certainly stone him. And thus they had put Christ to death, when this same court had found him guilty of blasphemy, but that, for his greater ignominy, they were desirous he should be crucified, and God overruled it for the fulfilling of the scripture. The fury with which they managed the execution is intimated in this: they cast him out of the city, as if they could not bear the sight of him they treated him as an anathema, as the offscouring of all things. The witnesses against him were the leaders in the execution, according to the law (Deuteronomy 17:7), The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him, to put him to death, and particularly in the case of blasphemy, Leviticus 24:14; Deuteronomy 13:9. Thus they were to confirm their testimony. ow, the stoning of a man being a laborious piece of work, the witnesses took off their upper garments, that they might not hang in their way, and they laid them down at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul, now a pleased spectator of this tragedy. It is the first time we find mention of his name we shall know it and love it better when we find it changed to Paul, and him changed from a persecutor into a preacher. This little instance of his agency in Stephen's death he afterwards reflected upon with regret (Acts 22:20): I kept the raiment of those that slew him.

II. See the strength of grace in Stephen, and the wonderful instances of God's favour to him, and working in him. As his persecutors were full of Satan, so was he full of the Holy Ghost, fuller than ordinary, anointed with fresh oil for the comb at, that, as the day, so might the strength be. Upon this account those are blessed who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, that the Spirit of God and of glory rests upon them, 1 Peter 4:14. When he was chosen to public service, he was described to be a man full of the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:5), and now he is called out to martyrdom he has still the same character. ote, Those that are full of the Holy Ghost are fit for any thing, either to act for Christ or to suffer for him. And those whom God calls out to difficult services for his name he will qualify for those services, and carry comfortably through them, by filling them with the Holy Ghost, that, as their afflictions for Christ abound, their consolation in him may yet more abound, and then none of these things move them. ow here we have a remarkable communion

between this blessed martyr and the blessed Jesus in this critical moment. When the followers of Christ are for his sake killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter, does this separate them from the love of Christ? Does he love them the less? Do they love him the less? o, by no means and so it appears by this narrative, in which we may observe.

1. Christ's gracious manifestation of himself to Stephen, both for his comfort and for his honour, in the midst of his sufferings. When they were cut to the heart, and gnashed upon him with their teeth, ready to eat him up, then he had a view of the glory of Christ sufficient to fill him with joy unspeakable, which was intended not only for his encouragement, but for the support and comfort of all God's suffering servants in all ages.

(1.) He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, Acts 7:55. [1.] Thus he looked above the power and fury of his persecutors, and did as it were despise them, and laugh them to scorn, as the daughter of Zion, Isaiah 37:22. They had their eyes fixed upon him, full of malice and cruelty but he looked up to heaven, and never minded them, was so taken up with the eternal life now in prospect that he seemed to have no manner of concern for the natural life now at state. Instead of looking about him, to see either which way he was in danger or which way he might make his escape, he looks up to heaven thence only comes his help, and thitherward his way is still open though they compass him about on every side, they cannot interrupt his intercourse with heaven. ote, A believing regard to God and the upper world will be of great use to us, to set us above the fear of man for as far as we are under the influence of that fear we forget the Lord our Maker, Isaiah 51:13. [2.] Thus he directed his sufferings to the glory of God, to the honour of Christ, and did as it were appeal to heaven concerning them (Lord, for thy sake I suffer this) and express his earnest expectation that Christ should be magnified in his body. ow that he was ready to be offered he looks up stedfastly to heaven, as one willing to offer himself. [3.] Thus he lifted up his soul with his eyes to God in the heavens, in pious ejaculations, calling upon God for wisdom and grace to carry him through this trial in a right manner. God has promised that he will be with his servants whom he calls out to suffer for him but he will for this be sought unto. He is nigh unto them, but it is in that for which they call upon him. Is any afflicted? Let him pray. [4.] Thus he breathed after the heavenly country, to which he saw the fury of his persecutors would presently send him. It is good for dying saints to look up stedfastly to heaven: "Yonder is the place whither death will carry my better part, and then, O death! where is thy sting?" [5.] Thus he made it to appear that he was full of the Holy Ghost for, wherever the Spirit of grace dwells, and works, and reigns, he directs the eye of the soul upward. Those that are full of the Holy Ghost will look up stedfastly to heaven, for there their heart is. [6.] Thus he put himself into a posture to receive the following manifestation of the divine glory and grace. If we expect to hear from heaven, we must look up stedfastly to heaven.

(2.) He saw the glory of God (Acts 7:55) for he saw, in order to this, the heavens opened, Acts 7:56. Some think his eyes were strengthened, and the sight of them so raised above its natural pitch, by a supernatural power, that he saw into the third

heavens, though at so vast a distance, as Moses's sight was enlarged to see the whole land of Canaan. Others think it was a representation of the glory of God set before his eyes, as, before, Isaiah and Ezekiel heaven did as it were come down to him, as Revelation 21:2. The heavens were opened, to give him a view of the happiness he was going to, that he might, in prospect of it, go cheerfully through death, so great a death. Would we by faith look up stedfastly, we might see the heavens opened by the mediation of Christ, the veil being rent, and a new and living way laid open for us into the holiest. The heaven is opened for the settling of a correspondence between God and men, that his favours and blessings may come down to us, and our prayers and praises may go up to him. We may also see the glory of God, as far as he has revealed it in his word, and the sight of this will carry us through all the terrors of sufferings and death.

(3.) He saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55), the Son of man, so it is Acts 7:56. Jesus, being the Son of man, having taken our nature with him to heaven, and being there clothed with a body, might be seen with bodily eyes, and so Stephen saw him. When the Old-Testament prophets saw the glory of God it was attended with angels. The Shechinah or divine presence in Isaiah's vision was attended with seraphim, in Ezekiel's vision with cherubim, both signifying the angels, the ministers of God's providence. But here no mention is made of the angels, though they surround the throne and the Lamb instead of them Stephen sees Jesus at the right hand of God, the great Mediator of God's grace, from whom more glory redounds to God than from all the ministration of the holy angels. The glory of God shines brightest in the face of Jesus Christ for there shines the glory of his grace, which is the most illustrious instance of his glory. God appears more glorious with Jesus standing at his right hand than with millions of angels about him. ow, [1.] Here is a proof of the exaltation of Christ to the Father's right hand the apostles saw him ascend, but they did not see him sit down, A cloud received him out of their sight. We are told that he sat down on the right hand of God but was he ever seen there? Yes, Stephen saw him there, and was abundantly satisfied with the sight. He saw Jesus at the right hand of God, denoting both his transcendent dignity and his sovereign dominion, his uncontrollable ability and his universal agency whatever God's right hand gives to us, or receives from us, or does concerning us, it is by him for he is his right hand. [2.] He is usually said to sit there but Stephen sees him standing there, as one more than ordinarily concerned at present for his suffering servant he stood up as a judge to plead his cause against his persecutors he is raised up out of his holy habitation (Zechariah 2:13), comes out of his place to punish, Isaiah 26:21. He stands ready to receive him and crown him, and in the mean time to give him a prospect of the joy set before him. [3.] This was intended for the encouragement of Stephen. He sees Christ is for him, and then no matter who is against him. When our Lord Jesus was in his agony an angel appeared to him, strengthening him but Stephen had Christ himself appearing to him. ote, othing so comfortable to dying saints, nor so animating to suffering saints, as to see Jesus at the right hand of God and, blessed be God, by faith we may see him there.

JAMISO,"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God — You who can transfer to canvas such scenes as these, in

which the rage of hell grins horribly from men, as they sit condemned by a frail prisoner of their own, and see heaven beaming from his countenance and opening full upon his view - I envy you, for I find no words to paint what, in the majesty of the divine text, is here so simply told. “But how could Stephen, in the council-chamber, see heaven at all? I suppose this question never occurred but to critics of narrow soul, one of whom [Meyer] conjectures that he saw it through the window! and another, of better mould, that the scene lay in one of the courts of the temple” [Alford]. As the sight was witnessed by Stephen alone, the opened heavens are to be viewed as revealed to his bright beaming spirit.

and Jesus standing on the right hand of God — Why “standing,” and not sitting, the posture in which the glorified Savior is elsewhere represented? Clearly, to express the eager interest with which He watched from the skies the scene in that council chamber, and the full tide of His Spirit which He was at that moment engaged in pouring into the heart of His heroical witness, till it beamed in radiance from his very countenance.

CALVI, "55.Forasmuch as he was full. We cannot almost express into what straits the servant of Christ was brought, when he saw himself beset round with raging enemies; the goodness of his cause was oppressed, partly with false accusations and malice, partly with violence and outrageous outcries; he was environed with stern countenances on every side; he himself was haled unto a cruel and horrible kind of death; he could espy succor and ease no where. Therefore, being thus destitute of man’s help, he turneth himself toward God. We must first note this, that Stephen did look unto God, who is the judge of life and death, (turning his eyes from beholding the world,) when he was brought into extreme despair of all things, whilst that there is nothing but death before his eyes. This done, we must also add this, that his expectation was not in vain, because Christ appeared to him by and by. Although Luke doth signify, that he was now armed with such power of the Spirit as could not be overcome, so that nothing could hinder him from beholding the heavens; therefore Stephen looketh up toward heaven, that he may gather courage by beholding Christ; that dying he may triumph gloriously, having overcome death. But as for us, it is no marvel if Christ do not show himself to us, because we are so set and tied upon the earth. Hereby it cometh to pass, that our hearts fail us at every light rumor of danger, and even at the falling of a leaf. And that for good causes; for where is our strength but in Christ? But we pass over the heavens, as if we had no help any where else, save only in the world, Furthermore, this vice can be redressed by no other means than if God lift us up by his Spirit, being naturally set upon the earth. Therefore, Luke assigneth this cause, why Stephen looked up steadfastly toward heaven, because he was full of the Spirit. We must also ascend into heaven, having this Spirit to be our director and guide, so often as we are oppressed with troubles. And, surely, until such time as he illuminate us, our eyes are not so quick of sight, that they can come unto heaven. Yea, the eyes of the flesh are so dull, that they cannot ascend into heaven.

He saw the glory of God. Luke signifieth, as I have said, that Christ appeared forthwith to Stephen so soon as he lifted up his eyes towards heaven. But he telleth

us before, that he had other eyes given him than the fleshly eyes, seeing that with the same (474) he flieth up unto the glory of God. Whence we must gather a general comfort, that God will be no less present with us, if, forsaking the world, all our senses strive to come to him; not that he appeareth unto us by any external vision, as he did to Stephen, but he will so reveal himself unto us within, that we may indeed feel his presence. And this manner of seeing ought to be sufficient for us, when God doth not only, by his power and grace, declare that he is nigh at hand, but doth also prove that he dwelleth in us.

COKE, "Acts 7:55. And Jesus standing on the right hand of God.— See the next note. It has been well observed, that Christ is generally represented sitting, but now as standing at God's right hand; that is, as risen up from the throne of his glory, to afford help to his distressed servant, and ready to receive him. It seems a very just conclusion of Mr. Addison's, that other martyrs, when called to suffer the last extremities, had extraordinaryassistances of some similar kind; or frail mortality could not surely have endured the torments under which they rejoiced; and sometimes preached Christ to the conversion of the spectators, and, in some instances, of their guards and tormentors too. See Addison's Evid. of Christianity, ch. 3: sect. 5.

COSTABLE, "Fully controlled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5; Acts 6:8; Acts 6:15) Stephen received a vision of Jesus standing beside God in all His glory. This vision of God's throne room in heaven is similar to visions that Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and John saw.

The unusual fact that Stephen saw Him standing rather than seated, as the biblical writers elsewhere describe Him (e.g., Psalms 110:1), may imply several things. It may imply His activity as prophet and mediator standing between God and man, and as a witness since He was witnessing through His witnesses on earth.

"Stephen has been confessing Christ before men, and now he sees Christ confessing His servant before God. The proper posture for a witness is the standing posture. Stephen, condemned by an earthly court, appeals for vindication to a heavenly court, and his vindicator in that supreme court is Jesus, who stands at God's right hand as Stephen's advocate, his 'paraclete.' When we are faced with words so wealthy in association as these words of Stephen, it is unwise to suppose that any single interpretation exhausts their significance. All the meaning that had attached to Psalms 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 f. is present here, including especially the meaning that springs from their combination on the lips of Jesus when He appeared before the Sanhedrin; but the replacement of 'sitting' by 'standing' probably makes its own contribution to the total meaning of the words in this context-a contribution distinctively appropriate to Stephen's present role as martyr-witness." [ote: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., pp. 168-69. Cf. Witherington, p. 275.]"Standing" may also imply Jesus' welcome of Stephen into His presence as the first Christian martyr.

"Here Jesus, functioning as Judge, welcomed Stephen into heaven, showing that despite earthly rejection, Stephen was honored in heaven." [ote: Bock, "A Theology . . .," p. 111.]Psalms 110:1 describes Messiah as at God's right hand, where Stephen saw Jesus. Jesus' position in relation to God suggests His acceptance by Him, His authority under God, and His access to God.

PETT, "‘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,’

For to Stephen a wonderful thing happened. Being full of the Holy Spirit (the continuous experience of his life) he looked up towards heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. He had begun his words describing the God of glory (Acts 7:2), and now he saw something of the revelation of that glory. And he saw Jesus standing on His right hand as God’s Messiah (compare Psalms 110:1). The description must not be taken too literally. There is no reason to think that he saw two figures. The glory of God would probably be a blinding and all enveloping light. And the figure of the Son of Man was necessary in order to stress that the resurrected Christ, both God and Man, was seen as being there as glorifed Man with the Godhead, as essentially united with the Godhead. ‘At His right hand’ indicates the position of power and authority that He enjoyed. He now had all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). The indefinable was being expressed. What could not be explained was being revealed. And Stephen was simply trying to explain in human terms the wonder of what he saw. It was not a time for definition but for awe. Here was the open revelation of Jesus’ triumph, and that the Kingly Rule of God had come.

ELLICOTT, "(55) Being full of the Holy Ghost.—There is something suggestive in the fact that this description comes at the close, as at the beginning, of the record of St. Stephen’s work (Acts 6:8). From first to last he had been conspicuous as manifesting the power of the higher life which had, as it were, illumined and transfigured his whole being. The Greek “being full” implies, not a sudden inspiration, but a permanent state.

And saw the glory of God.—Stephen had begun with speaking of “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2). He ends with the vision of that glory as belonging to the Son of Man. The fact was inferred partly, we may believe, from the rapt, fixed expression of the martyr’s face, partly from the words that followed, interpreting that upward gaze. On the word for “looked up steadfastly,” see ote on Acts 3:4.

OTES, If the outlook is bad try the up look. Here is an example of how the presence of God can keep one calm in the worst situations. This was the valley of death for Stephen but he feared it not for he could see his shepherd. See Allen p. 218-20.

Stephen who spoke of the God of glory got to see the glory of God.

Standing

For ah, the Master is so fair, His smile so sweet to banished men,That they who meet it unaware Can never rest on earth again;And they who see Him risen afar, At God’s right hand to welcome them,Forgetful stand of home and land Desiring fair Jerusalem.

56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

BARES, "I see the heavens opened - A figurative expression, denoting that he was permitted to see “into” heaven, or to see what was there, as if the firmament was divided, and the eye was permitted to penetrate the eternal world. Compare Ezekiel 1:1.

GILL, "And said, behold, I see the heavens opened,.... As they were at the baptism of Christ; see Gill on Matthew 3:16,

and the son of man standing at the right hand of God; he calls Jesus "the son of man"; a name by which he often called himself in his state of humiliation; and that though he was now glorified, it being the name of the Messiah in Psalm 80:17 as was well known to the Jews; and this Stephen said to show that God was on his side, and to let them know what honour was done him, what divine supports and comforts he had, and that he was an eyewitness of Jesus, and of his being alive, and in glory.

HERY, "(4.) He told those about him what he saw (Acts 7:56): Behold, I see the heavens opened. That which was a cordial to him ought to have been a conviction to them, and a caution to them to take heed of proceeding against one upon whom heaven thus smiled and therefore what he saw he declared, let them make what use

they pleased of it. If some were exasperated by it, others perhaps might be wrought upon to consider this Jesus whom they persecuted, and to believe in him.

2. Stephen's pious addresses to Jesus Christ. The manifestation of God's glory to him did not set him above praying, but rather set him upon it: They stoned Stephen, calling upon God, Acts 7:59. Though he called upon God, and by that showed himself to be a true-born Israelite, yet they proceeded to stone him, not considering how dangerous it is to fight against those who have an interest in heaven. Though they stoned him, yet he called upon God nay, therefore he called upon him. ote, It is the comfort of those who are unjustly hated and persecuted by men that they have a God to go to, a God all-sufficient to call upon. Men stop their ears, as they did here (Acts 7:57), but God does not. Stephen was now cast out of the city, but he was not cast out from his God. He was now taking his leave of the world, and therefore calls upon God for we must do this as long as we live. ote, It is good to die praying then we need help--strength we never had, to do a work we never did--and how can we fetch in that help and strength but by prayer? Two short prayers Stephen offered up to God in his dying moments, and in them as it were breathed out his soul:--

(1.) Here is a prayer for himself: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Thus Christ had himself resigned his spirit immediately into the hands of the Father. We are here taught to resign ours into the hands of Christ as Mediator, by him to be recommended to the Father. Stephen saw Jesus standing at the Father's right hand, and he thus calls to him: "Blessed Jesus, do that for me now which thou standest there to do for all thine, receive my departing spirit into thy hand." Observe, [1.] The soul is the man, and our great concern, living and dying, must be about our souls. Stephen's body was to be miserably broken and shattered, and overwhelmed with a shower of stones, the earthly house of this tabernacle violently beaten down and abused but, however it goes with that, "Lord," saith he, "'let my spirit be safe let it go well with my poor soul." Thus, while we live, our care should be that though the body be starved or stripped the soul may be fed and clothed, though the body lie in pain the soul may dwell at ease and, when we die, that though the body be thrown by as a despised broken vessel, and a vessel in which there is no pleasure, yet the soul may be presented a vessel of honour, that God may be the strength of the heart and its portion, though the flesh fail. [2.] Our Lord Jesus is God, to whom we are to seek, and in whom we are to confide and comfort ourselves living and dying. Stephen here prays to Christ, and so must we for it is the will of God that all men should thus honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. It is Christ we are to commit ourselves to, who alone is able to keep what we commit to him against that day it is necessary that we have an eye to Christ when we come to die, for there is no venturing into another world but under his conduct, no living comforts in dying moments but what are fetched from him. [3.] Christ's receiving our spirits at death is the great thing we are to be careful about, and to comfort ourselves with. We ought to be in care about this while we live, that Christ may receive our spirits when we die for, if he reject and disown them, whither will they betake themselves? How can they escape being a prey to the roaring lion? To him therefore we must commit them daily, to be ruled and sanctified, and made meet for heaven, and then, and not otherwise, he will receive them. And, if this has been our care while we live, it may

be our comfort when we come to die, that we shall be received into everlasting habitations.

JAMISO,"the Son of man standing, etc. — This is the only time that our Lord is by human lips called THE SO OF MA after His ascension (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14 are not instances). And why here? Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, speaking now not of himself at all (Acts 7:55), but entirely by the Spirit, is led to repeat the very words in which Jesus Himself, before this same council, had foretold His glorification (Matthew 26:64), assuring them that that exaltation of the SO OF MA which they should hereafter witness to their dismay, was already begun and actual [Alford].

CALVI, "56.Behold, I see the heavens. God meant not only privately to provide for his servant, but also to wring and torment his enemies; as Stephen doth courageously triumph over them, when he affirmeth plainly that he saw a miracle. And here may a question be moved, how the heavens were opened? For mine own part, I think that there was nothing changed in the nature of the heavens; but that Stephen had new quickness of sight granted him, which pierced through all lets, even unto the invisible glory of the kingdom of heaven. For admit we grant that there was some division or parting (475) made in heaven, yet man’s eye could never reach so far. Again, Stephen alone did see the glory of God. For that spectacle was not only hid from the wicked, who stood in the same place, but they were also so blinded within themselves, that they did not see the manifest truth. (476) Therefore, he saith that the heavens are opened to him in this respect, because nothing keepeth him from beholding the glory of God. Whereupon it followeth that the miracle was not wrought in heaven, but in his eyes. Wherefore, there is no cause why we should dispute long about any natural vision; because it is certain that Christ appeared unto him not after some natural manner, but after a new and singular sort. And I pray you of what color was the glory of God, that it could be seen naturally with the eyes of the flesh? Therefore, we must imagine nothing in this vision but that which is divine. Moreover, this is worth the noting, that the glory of God appeared not unto Stephen wholly as it was, but according to man’s capacity. For that infiniteness cannot be comprehended with the measure of any creature.

The Son of man standing. He seeth Christ reigning in that flesh wherein he was abased; so that in very deed the victory did consist in this one thing. Therefore, it is not superfluous in that Christ appeareth unto him, and for this cause doth he also call him the Son of man, as if he should say, I see that man whom ye thought ye had quite extinguished by death enjoying the government of heaven; therefore, gnash with your teeth as much as you list: there is no cause why I should fear to fight for him even unto blood, who shall not only defend his own cause, but my salvation also. otwithstanding, here may a question be moved, why he saw him standing, who is said elsewhere to sit? Augustine, as he is sometimes more subtle than needs, saith, “that he sitteth as a judge, that he stood then as an advocate.” For mine own part, I think that though these speeches be diverse, yet they signify both one thing. For neither sitting, nor yet standing, noteth out how the body of Christ was framed; but this is referred unto his power and kingdom. For where shall we erect him a

throne, that he may sit at the right hand of God the Father, seeing God doth fill all things in such sort, that we ought to imagine no place for his right hand?

Therefore, the whole text is a metaphor, when Christ is said to sit or stand at the right hand of God the Father, and the plain meaning is this, that Christ hath all power given him, that he may reign in his Father’s stead in that flesh wherein he was humbled, and that he may be next him. And although this power be spread abroad through heaven and earth, yet some men imagine amiss that Christ in every where in his human nature. For, though he be contained in a certain place, yet that hindereth no whit but that he may and doth show forth his power throughout all the world. Therefore, if we be desirous to feel him present by the working of his grace, we must seek him in heaven; as he revealed himself unto Stephen there. Also, some men do affirm ridiculously out of this place, that he drew near unto Stephen that he might see him. (477) For we have already said, that Stephen’s eyes were so lifted up by the power of the Spirit, (478) that no distance of place could hinder the same. I confess, indeed, that speaking properly, that is, philosophically, there is no place above the heavens. But this is sufficient for me, that it is perverse doting to place Christ any where else save only in heaven, and above the elements of the world.

COKE, "Acts 7:56. Behold, I see the heavens opened,— The reality of Stephen's seeing this vision, as he described it, appears from the improbability of his being guilty of any design to deceive, as well as from the authenticity and certainty of divine revelation. He was a man of great note and eminence in the church, and held the first place among the seven deacons. He justified the Christian faith against all opposers with singular wisdom. He confounded all those with whom he disputed. When false witnesses were suborned, and he was brought before the Sanhedrim to be tried, his judges saw that he was so far from being daunted, that there was a sparkling majesty in his countenance, like that of an angel. This emboldened him to speak without reserve to the council, and to reprove them for resisting the Holy Ghost; which enraged them to the highest degree. But Stephen, still full of the Holy Ghost, and undaunted at what he foresaw he must suffer from an exasperated mob, cast his eyes toward heaven, from whence cometh help, and bade them take notice that he saw the glory of God, and Jesus shining at his right hand, in far greater glory than they had seen in his face. If he had not been sure that he beheld him whom they crucified, a person of his wisdom would have been more cautious, than to follow him in that bloody path, to which this assertion of course led him; especially as his silence might have preserved him from danger. But so visible was the majesty of our Saviour, that he could not but proclaim it, though he knew they would call it blasphemy, and punish him for it with death. He was willing to suffer for the honour of his Master, who, by this vision, demonstrated to him that he was the Son of the Highest, and able to reward all his faithful servants with immortal glory. If it be asked how he could see the glory of God, (Acts 7:55.) and how he knew the person who appeared at God's right hand to be Jesus? in answer to the first question, we may reply that he saw God's glory in the same sense as others are said to have seen God: he beheld some very bright appearance. Thus Moses was afraid to look upon God, Exodus 3:6. Such a glory it was that Stephen beheld; a glory more

pure and refulgent than the light of the sun; a glory, which was the symbol of the presence of the divine majesty, who used in this manner to make men sensible of his transcendant invisible glory. In this divine presence he saw Jesus in the most high and most exalted place. Stephen indeed saw him standing; which might refer to his priestly office;—standing being the posture of those who ministered in the temple at the altar. This posture, therefore, might imply his officiating in the heavenly places, for the comfort of all Christians, as well as of Stephen himself; or rather as ready to come to take vengeance upon the implacable enemies who had killed him, and now persecuted his servants. As to the second question, how he could know that it was Jesus whom he saw, it is easily replied to;—he appeared in the same form as upon earth; only more shining and resplendent: and therefore, when Stephen says to the Jews, "I see the Son of man standing," &c. he means that very Person who used to call himself the Son of man. And if we follow the scope of his speech, he seems to say no less than this; "That very Person who called himself the Son of man, whom you have crucified, I now see so exalted, that I had rather die as he did, than not confess him to be the Son of God." Stephen saw him risen up from his throne, as if he was coming to be avenged of his enemies, to succour all his servants, and to welcome this martyr to immortal bliss. That Stephen was fully confident of this is evident from his resigning up his soul to Jesus with the same confidence, (Acts 7:59.) and almost in the same words, with which Jesus gave up his to God the Father. The last words of our Saviour were, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!" Luke 23:46. Stephen, in the extremity of his sufferings, called upon God, and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! he died with these and the following words in his mouth, crying again with a loud voice,—Lord, lay not this sin to their charge! In which he expressed as much charity to men, as in the other sentence he did faith in Christ. ow, as in this awful period he displayed such piety and goodness, such candour and humanity, and was so utterly void of all rancour, when he had the highest provocations from his enemies; we may conclude (besides the certainty of the fact as declared in the canon of Scripture) that it is utterly improbable he could be guilty of a lie to deceive others; and we may be assured that God would not suffer so extraordinary a person to be deceived, to the ruin of himself, and to the sacrificing, if not calling away, so precious a life.

COSTABLE, "Stephen announced his vision and described Jesus as the "Son of Man" (cf. Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14). This was a title of the Messiah that implied the universal aspect of his rule that Daniel used (Daniel 7:13-14). Jesus alone used this title of Himself in the Gospels. He had used it of Himself when He stood before the Sanhedrin not many weeks earlier (Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69). Stephen was virtually saying that his vision confirmed Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man. Access to God is through Jesus Christ, not through temple ritual, as the Jews taught (1 Timothy 2:5).

PETT, "‘And said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.”

At what he saw he could not help himself, and he cried out and declared his

interpretation of what he saw. It revealed that the Son of Man had truly come in the clouds to the throne of God and had received His everlasting dominion and Kingly Rule (Daniel 7:13-14), and it was in those terms that he expressed it. It was a fulfilment of Jesus promise to His judges in Matthew 26:64. This is the only use of the term Son of Man outside the Gospels, where it is restricted to Jesus using it of Himself, apart from in Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14 where it refers to the glorious Son of Man, illustrating both the early nature of the narrative, and its uniqueness. It confirmed that Jesus was the glorious Messiah, having been given all authority in heaven and earth. And He was standing because He was ready to receive His servant. He knew what was coming next. He had experienced something similar Himself.

Some consider that Jesus is standing because He is acting as a witness, as He bears testimony to Stephen before the Father. A witness always had to stand. And we need not doubt that Jesus bore witness to the Godhead of Stephen’s triumph. But a welcomer would also stand. And Luke probably intends us to contrast this open welcome by the Lord of glory with the rejection of the Sanhedrin. The prime authority in heaven welcomes Stephen even while the authorities on earth despatch him. And the same will be true for all who are persecuted for bearing witness to His ame.

‘I see the heavens opened.’ A way of expressing that he had a glimpse of the Beyond. He was being given a vision of what was usually veiled.

ELLICOTT, "(56) Behold, I see the heavens opened.—It is manifest that the vision was given to the inward spiritual eye, and not to that of sense. o priest or scribe saw the glory of the opened heavens, and, therefore, the words which declared that Stephen saw them seemed to them but an aggravation of guilt that was already deep. (See ote on Matthew 3:16.)

And the Son of man.—The words call for notice as the only certain instance outside the Gospels of the use of the name which they record to have been constantly used by our Lord in speaking of Himself. (See ote on Matthew 8:20.) As the speech of Stephen was delivered at least some years before any Gospel was written, and as the whole character of the speech reported, even in its apparent inconsequence and inaccuracy, is against the theory that it was put by the historian into the martyr’s lips, its occurrence here is evidence in favour of the Gospel narrative, as showing that the title, which a few years afterwards, for some reason or other, the disciples ceased to use, was at that earlier date familiar. As uttered by Stephen before the Sanhedrin, it had the special emphasis of reminding them of the words which had been spoken by the Son of Man Himself (Matthew 26:64). It was from their point of view a repetition of what they had then condemned as blasphemy. In Revelation 1:14 we have possibly another instance.

Standing on the right hand of God.—Our Lord’s own language (Matthew 26:64), and that of the Church following it (e.g., Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 8:1), has

commonly spoken of Him as sitting at the right hand of God. It was not, we may believe, without significance that He was manifested to Stephen’s gaze as standing in the attitude of one who rises to help and welcome a follower who had shown himself faithful even unto death.

MACLARE, "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!

OTES 7:56

Son of man-this is the only place in the . T. where this is applied to Jesus by another. He used it for himself often. Stephen grasped the truth that Jesus was more than a Jewish Messiah, for he was on the throne of the universe and was the son of all men.

Happy if with my latest breath I may but speak his name;Preach Him to all, and cry in death, Behold, behold, the Lamb!

J. C. LavaterO Jesus Christ, grow thou in me, And all things else recede;My heart be daily nearer Thee, From sin be daily freed.More of thy glory let me see, Thou Holy, Wise, and True;

I would thy living image be In joy and sorrow too.

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,

BARES, "Then they cried out - That is, probably, “the people,” not the members of the council It is evident he was put to death in a popular tumult. They had charged him with blasphemy; and they regarded what he had now said as full proof of it.

And stopped their ears - That they might hear no more blasphemy.

With one accord - In a tumult; unitedly.

GILL, "Then they cried out with a loud voice,.... These were not the sanhedrim, but the common people; the Ethiopic version reads, "the Jews cried out"; which, they did, in a very clamorous way, either through rage and madness, or in a show of zeal against blasphemy; and cried out, either to God to avenge the blasphemy, or rather to the sanhedrim to pass a sentence on him, or, it may be, to excite one another to rise up at once, and kill him, as they did:

and stopped their ears; with their fingers, pretending they could not bear the blasphemy that was uttered. This was their usual method; hence they say,F15.

"if a man hears anything that is indecent, (or not fit to be heard,) let him put his fingers in his ears hence the whole ear is hard, and the tip of it soft, that when he hears anything that is not becoming, he may bend the tip of the ear within it.'

By either of these ways these men might stop their ears; either by putting in their fingers, or by turning the tip of the ear inward.

And ran upon him with one accord; without any leave of the sanhedrim, or waiting for their determination, in the manner the zealots did; See Gill on Matthew 10:4, John 16:2.

CALVI, "57.Crying with a loud voice. This was either a vain show of zeal, as hypocrites are almost always pricked forward with ambition to break out into immoderate heat; as Caiaphas when he heard Christ say thus, After this ye shall see the Son of man, etc., did rent his clothes in token of indignation, as if it were intolerable blasphemy; or else certainly the preaching of the glory of Christ was unto them such a torment, that they must needs burst through madness. And I am rather of this mind; for Luke saith afterward, that they were carried violently, as those men which have no hold of themselves use to leap out immoderately. (479)

BESO, "Acts 7:57-59. Then they cried out with a loud voice — Being provoked to such a degree that they could not contain themselves, and meaning to drown the voice of Stephen; and stopped their ears — As if they could not bear to hear such blasphemy as they wished to have it thought he had spoken. And ran upon him —Greek, ωρµησαν, rushed on him with one accord, before any sentence was regularly passed; and cast — Greek, εκβαλοντες εξω της πολεως, casting him out of the city — It seems by a gate near the place where the sanhedrim sat; and as soon as they had got without the boundaries of that sacred place, of which they judged it would be a profanation to stain it with human blood, they stoned him — This, like the stoning of Paul at Lystra, seems to have been an act of popular fury, exceeding the power which the Jews regularly had; which, though it might have extended to passing a capital sentence, was certainly not sufficient for carrying it into execution, without the consent of the Romans. The Jews were more than once ready to stone Christ, not only when by their own confession they had not power to put any one to death, (John 18:31,) but when nothing had passed which had the shadow of a legal trial. How far they now might have formed those express notions of what the rabbis call the judgment of zeal, is not easy to say; but it is certain they acted on that principle, and as if they had thought every private Israelite had, like Phinehas, who is pleaded as an example of it, a right to put another to death on the spot, if he found him in a capital breach of the divine law; a notion, by the way, directly contrary to Deuteronomy 17:6, which required at least two witnesses in capital cases, where there was a legal process. And the two witnesses — Whose hands were first upon him to put him to death; laid down their clothes, &c. — In executions of this kind, it was usual for those who had borne witness against the criminal to cast the first stones at him; and for this purpose they were wont to put off their upper garments, and gave them to be kept by persons equally hearty in the prosecution with themselves; and on this occasion the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of Saul, afterward called Paul, who, it seems, willingly took charge of them, to show how heartily he concurred with them in the execution. O Saul! wouldst thou have believed, if one had told thee, while thou wast urging on the cruel multitude, that the time would come when thou thyself shouldst be twice stoned in the same cause, and shouldst triumph in committing thy soul likewise to that Jesus whom thou wast now blaspheming? His dying prayer reached thee, as well as many others. And the martyr Stephen, and Saul the persecutor, (afterward his brother, both in faith and martyrdom,) are now joined in everlasting friendship, and dwell together in the happy company of those who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

COFFMA, "Stopped their ears ... rushed upon him ... etc. This was a mob scene, not the execution of a deliberate sentence. It was illegal, no Roman sanction having been given for execution of the death penalty; and those critics who question John's gospel with its reference repeatedly to Jewish efforts to stone Jesus, declaring such to have been illegal and therefore impossible, are frustrated by this episode. As Richardson said, "Here is a case of mob stoning such as is said to have been impossible.[20]

The witnesses laid down their garments ... This was probably the only formality observed during the mob stoning of Stephen. The ancient law required that the hands of the witnesses were to be first against the one stoned, and Adam Clarke tells us that "when they came to within four cubits of the place of execution, the victim was stripped naked."[21] One cannot help wondering about those "witnesses" who had accepted money to swear lies against Stephen and thus found themselves to be his murderers also. Thus, once more, there is scriptural testimony of the relationship between lying and murder, these two sins having been named by Jesus as "works" of Satan (John 8:44), an Old Testament example of the same thing being that of Doeg (1 Samuel 22:9-18).

Young man named Saul ... Here, in this bloody episode, there was evidence of the timeless principle that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." That young man was never to forget what his eyes that day beheld, what his heart felt, and what his conscience said; and there was born in his soul that instant an impression that would in time recruit him to the faith of Christ and energize the greatest evangelist of all ages.

[20] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 135.

[21] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 736.

COSTABLE, "Stephen's declaration amounted to blasphemy to the Sanhedrin. They knew that when he said "Son of Man" he meant "Jesus." Furthermore, the Jews believed that no one had the right to be at God's right hand in heaven. [ote: Ibid.] The Sanhedrin members therefore cried out in agony of soul, covered their ears so they would hear no more, and seized Stephen to prevent him from saying more or escaping. Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy in Israel (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 17:7), and the Sanhedrin members went right to it.

In the three trials before the Sanhedrin that Luke recorded thus far, the first ended with a warning (Acts 4:17; Acts 4:21), the second with flogging (Acts 5:40), and the third with stoning (Acts 7:58-60). The Sanhedrin now abandoned Gamaliel's former moderating advice (Acts 5:35-39). It did not have the authority to execute someone without Roman sanction, and Jewish law forbade executing a person on the same day as his trial. [ote: Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1.] However since witnesses were

present to cast the first stones, as the Mosaic Law prescribed, Stephen's death seems not to have been simply the result of mob violence but official action. Probably it was mob violence precipitated and controlled by the Sanhedrin along the lines of Jesus' execution.

"The message of Stephen, it seems, served as a kind of catalyst to unite Sadducees, Pharisees, and the common people against the early Christians." [ote: Longenecker, p. 351.]Saul of Tarsus was there and cooperated with the authorities by holding their cloaks while they carried out their wicked business (cf. Acts 8:1; Acts 22:20). He was then a "young man" (Gr. neanias, cf. Acts 20:9; Acts 23:17-18; Acts 23:22), but we do not know his exact age. Since he died about A.D. 68 and since Stephen probably died about A.D. 34, perhaps Saul was in his mid-thirties. Jesus and Saul appear to have been roughly contemporaries. This verse does not imply that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin. [ote: See Simon Légasse, "Paul's Pre-Christian Career according to Acts," in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 365-90.]

PETT,"‘But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed on him with one accord, and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him.

Everything broke at once. They could no longer restrain themselves. With cries of anguish the members of the Sanhedrin blocked their ears at this blasphemy, a symbolic gesture indicating their horror, and rushing at him, dragged him through the street to outside the city, where they stoned him. It was as though they had been taken with madness. All restraint had gone. This was the staid Sanhedrin, but they were baying like mad hounds which had smelled blood. Such moments of madness can seize even the sanest of people. And it had happened here. They had become a lynch mob. That is what unreasoning belief mingled with a bad conscience can do to people.

Serious blasphemy was in fact almost the only crime for which the Sanhedrin could pass the death sentence. There were notices in the Temple warning of instant death to anyone unauthorised who went beyond the outer court. And in spite of their fury they appear to have ‘observed the rules’ in that the witnesses were present in order to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7).

‘Cast him out of the city’ (compare Deuteronomy 17:5; umbers 15:35). Death must not take place within the city, for it would defile the city. It is ironic that he who had pointed them to what their fathers had done in following idolatry was treated as though he had been guilty of idolatry (Deuteronomy 17:5-7). In the same way had Jesus died ‘without the gate’ (Hebrews 13:12). So in their dreadful crimes did they maintain the niceties of the Law.

‘And stoned him.’ He had dared to point out to them that they had rejected and slain the prophets (Acts 7:52). So now they stoned him. The only actual record we

have of the death of a prophet was of one they stoned (2 Chronicles 24:21). This was their way of getting rid of prophets, and they proved themselves adept at it. The irony of the whole situation is obvious. They sought to prove that he was wrong by proving that he was right.

ELLICOTT, "(57) Ran upon him with one accord.—The violence reported presents a singular contrast to the general observance of the forms of a fair trial in our Lord’s condemnation. Then, however, we must remember, the Roman procurator was present in Jerusalem. ow all restraint was removed, and fanaticism had full play. That neither office nor age was enough to guard, under such conditions, against shameful outrage has been seen even in the history of Christian assemblies, as, e.g., in that of the Robber Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449. The caution in 1 Timothy 3:3, that a bishop should not be a striker, shows how near the danger was even in the apostolic age. The facts in this case seem to imply that the accusers, and perhaps also the excited crowd whom they represented, were present as listening to the speech, as well as the members of the Sanhedrin.

58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

BARES, "And cast him out of the city - This was in accordance with the usual custom. In Leviticus 24:14, it was directed to bring forth him that had cursed without the camp; and it was not usual, the Jewish writers inform us, to stone in the presence of the Sanhedrin. Though this was a popular tumult, and Stephen was condemned without the regular process of trial, yet some of the “forms” of law were observed, and he was stoned in the manner directed in the case of blasphemers.

And stoned him - This was the punishment appointed in the case of blasphemy, Leviticus 24:16. See the notes on John 10:31.

And the witnesses - That is, the false witnesses who bore testimony against him, Acts 6:13. It was directed in the Law Deuteronomy 17:7 that the “witnesses” in the case should be first in executing the sentence of the Law. This was done to prevent false accusations by the prospect that they must be employed as executioners. After they had commenced the process of execution, all the people joined in it, Deuteronomy

17:7; Leviticus 24:16.

Laid down their clothes - Their “outer garments.” They were accustomed to lay these aside when they ran or worked. See the notes on Matthew 5:40.

At a young man‘s feet … - That is, they procured him to take care of their garments. This is mentioned solely because Saul, or Paul, afterward became so celebrated, first as a persecutor, and then an apostle. His whole heart was in this persecution of Stephen; and he himself afterward alluded to this circumstance as an evidence of his sinfulness in persecuting the Lord Jesus, Acts 22:20.

GILL, "And cast him out of the city,.... Of Jerusalem; for the place of stoning was without the city. The process, when regular, according to the sentence of the court, was after this mannerF16;

"judgment being finished, (or the trial over,) they brought him out (the person condemned) to stone him; the place of stoning was without the sanhedrim, as it is said, Leviticus 24:14 "bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp", when he was ten cubits distant from the place of stoning, they order him to confess and when four cubits from it, they take off his garments--the place of stoning was twice a man's height.'

And elsewhereF17 it is said, that the place of stoning was without three camps (the camp of the Shekinah, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Israelites): upon which the gloss has these words;

"the court is the camp of the Shekinah, and the mountain of the house the camp of the Levites, and every city the camp of the Israelites; and in the sanhedrim in every city, the place of stoning was without the city like to Jerusalem.'

And these men, though transported with rage and fury, yet were so far mindful of rule, as to have him out of the city before they stoned him:

and they stoned him; which was done after this manner, when in formF18:

"the wise men say, a man was stoned naked, but not a woman; and there was a place four cubits from the house of stoning, where they plucked off his clothes, only they covered his nakedness before. The place of stoning was two men's heights, and there he went up with his hands bound, and one of the witnesses thrust him on his loins, that he might fall upon the earth; and if he died not at that push, the witnesses lifted up a stone, which lay there, the weight of two men, and one cast it with all his strength upon him; and if he died not, he was stoned by all Israel.'

And the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul; for the witnesses, according to the above account, were first concerned in the stoning; and this was agreeably to the rule in Deuteronomy 17:7 and which they seem to have observed amidst all their hurry and fury: and that they might perform

their work with more ease and expedition, they plucked off their upper garments, and committed them to the care of Saul of Tarsus; who was now at Jerusalem, and belonged to the synagogue of the Cilicians, that disputed with Stephen, and suborned false witnesses against him. He is called a young man; not that he was properly a youth, for he must be thirty years of age, or more; since about thirty years after this he calls himself Paul the aged, Philemon 1:9 when he must be at least sixty years of age, if not more; besides, Ananias calls him a "man", Acts 9:13 nor would the high priests have given letters to a mere youth, investing him with so much power and authority as they did; but he is so called, because he was in the prime of his days, hale, strong, and active. The learned Alting has taken a great deal of pains to show, that this Saul, who was afterwards Paul the apostle, is the same with Samuel the little, who is frequently mentioned in the Talmud; he living at this time, and being a disciple of Rabban Gamaliel, and a bitter enemy of the heretics, or Christians; and who, at the instigation of his master, composed a prayer against them; and his name and character agreeing with him: but it is not likely that the Jews would have retained so high an opinion of him to the last, had he been the same person: for they sayF19,

"that as the elders were sitting in Jabneh, Bath Kol came forth, and said, there is one among you fit to have the Holy Ghost, or the Shekinah, dwell upon him; and they set their eyes on Samuel the little; and when he died, they said, ah the holy, ah the meek disciple of Hillell!'

JAMISO,"cast him out of the city — according to Leviticus 24:14; umbers 15:35; 1 Kings 21:13; and see Hebrews 13:12.

and stoned — “proceeded to stone” him. The actual stoning is recorded in Acts 7:59.

and the witnesses — whose hands were to be first upon the criminal (Deuteronomy 17:7).

laid down their clothes — their loose outer garments, to have them taken charge of.

at a young man‘s feet whose name was Saul — How thrilling is this our first introduction to one to whom Christianity - whether as developed in the ew Testament or as established in the world - owes more perhaps than to all the other apostles together! Here he is, having perhaps already a seat in the Sanhedrim, some thirty years of age, in the thick of this tumultuous murder of a distinguished witness for Christ, not only “consenting unto his death” (Acts 8:1), but doing his own part of the dark deed.

CALVI, "58.They stoned. God had appointed this kind of punishment in the law for false prophets, as it is written in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy; but God doth also define there who ought to be reckoned in that number; to wit, he which doth attempt to bring the people unto strange gods; therefore the stoning of Stephen was both unjust and also wicked, because he was unjustly condemned; so that the martyrs of Christ must suffer like punishment with the wicked. It is the cause alone

which maketh the difference; but this difference is so highly esteemed before God and his angels, that the rebukes of the martyrs (480) do far excel all glory of the world. Yet here may a question be moved, How it was lawful for the Jews to stone Stephen, who had not the government in their hands? For in Christ’s cause they answer, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. I answer, that they did this violently and in an uproar. And whereas the president did not punish this wickedness, it may be that he winked at many things, (481) lest they should bring that hatred upon his own head which they bare against the name of Christ. We see that the Roman presidents did chiefly wink at the civil discords of that nation, even of set purpose; that when one of them had murdered another, (482) they might the sooner be overcome afterward.

PETT, "‘And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.’

The rules for stoning were observed so scrupulously that a mature young man called Saul, who had not been a witness, demonstrated his oneness with the sentence by guarding the coats of the witnesses as they carried out the stoning, because he knew that the Law said that he could not be the first to participate because he was not a witness. But he was an angry and vengeful young man, full of hate for Stephen, and wanted to show as far as he could that he thought that Stephen deserved everything that he received.

However, he stood aside from the stoning, even when the witnesses had commenced it (when he could have joined in - Deuteronomy 17:7). This suggests that he is mentioned, not so much because he guarded the coats but because of what that indicated. It indicated a position of some authority, and direct identification with the deed even though he did not particpate. While he would not himself cast stones, possibly because he felt that it was not the position of a would be Rabbi to do so unless he were a witness, he was very much one with those who did it. Here we have the picture of the implacable enemy.

There is an implacableness about him that is unnerving. He stood there, we may imagine with his arms folded, not only surveying the scene but giving it his approval. All knew him for what he was, for he was a disciple of Rabban Gamaliel. And already his mind was probably determining that he would seek approval for the plan that was formulating in his brain and hunt down more of these blasphemers and punish them. (We know him too, for we are shortly to learn more of his history when he becomes Paul. He never forgot this moment. It burned its way into his soul - see Acts 22:20).

ELLICOTT, "(58) And stoned him.—Literally, were stoning him. The verb is repeated in Acts 7:59, as if to show that the shower of stones went on even during the martyr’s prayers.

The witnesses laid down their clothes.—The Law required, as if to impress on

witnesses their solemn responsibility, that they should be the first, if the accused were condemned to death, to take part in his execution (Deuteronomy 17:7). Our Lord, it will be remembered, had applied the rule in the case of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:7). The loose, flowing cloak, which was worn as an outer garment, would have impeded the free action of their arms, and had therefore to be laid on one side.

A young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.—As defined by Philo, on the authority of medical writers, the term thus used extended from twenty-one to twenty-eight years of age. Looking to the prominent position taken by Saul in this matter, and to his description of himself as “Paul the aged,” A.D. 64 (Philemon 1:9), it will be safe to assume that he had nearly attained the later limit. It will be convenient on this his first appearance to put together the chief facts of his life up to this period. He was of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5), and had been named after its great hero-king. His father had obtained, perhaps as a freed-man, after a time of slavery at Rome, the privilege of Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28). He had settled at Tarsus. The absence of any reference to him or to the Apostle’s mother makes it probable that they were both dead before he appears on the scene. The son of a married sister is found, apparently residing in Jerusalem, in Acts 23:16. At Tarsus the boy would probably receive a two-fold education, instructed at home in the Holy Scriptures daily, and in Greek literature and philosophy in the schools for which the city was famous. Traces of the knowledge thus acquired are found in his quotations from the Cilician poet Aratus (see ote on Acts 17:28), Menander (see 1 Corinthians 15:33), Epimenides (see Titus 1:12), and the Festival Hymn quoted by him at Lystra (see ote on Acts 14:17). At twelve he would become a child of the Law (see ote on Luke 2:42); and showing great devotion to the studies which thus opened on him, was probably dedicated by his parents to the calling of a scribe. This, however, did not involve the abandonment of secular occupation; and after some years spent in Jerusalem, studying under Gamaliel (we may say, with almost absolute certainty, before the commencement of our Lord’s ministry), he returned to his native city, and became a “tent-maker” (Acts 18:3)—a manufacturer, i.e., of the coarse goats’ hair sail-cloth, for which Cilicia was famous. There seems reason to believe that somewhere about this time he became acquainted with Barnabas (see ote on Acts 4:36), and possibly also with St. Luke (see ote on Acts 13:1; Acts 16:10, and Introduction to St. Luke’s Gospel). In the interval between the Ascension and the appointment of the Seven Deacons, he came up to Jerusalem. He finds a new sect, as it would seem, added to the three—the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes—whom he had known before. In some respects their teaching is such as Hillel, the grandfather of Gamaliel, would have approved. They pray and fast, and give alms. They proclaim a resurrection and a judgment after death. They connect that proclamation with the belief that a teacher of azareth, who had died a malefactor’s death, was the long-expected Messiah. What is he to think of these startling claims? What were others thinking? Gamaliel, his master, counselled caution and a policy of expectation (Acts 5:35-39); Barnabas, his early friend, had joined the new society (Acts 4:36); Andronicus and Junias, his kinsmen, had followed the example (Romans 16:7). But Saul had a zeal which was more fiery than theirs. He was a Pharisee after the straitest sect, and the teaching of Stephen, more conspicuously, it

would seem, than that of Peter, was a protest against Pharisaism, and told of its coming downfall. He, therefore, could make no truce with that teaching, and burst impatiently from the cautions of his master. For good or for evil, he was at least “thorough,” and had the courage of his convictions. Even the face as of an angel and the words of ecstatic joy did but kindle in him the fire of a burning indignation.

EBC, "THE TRAIIG OF SAUL THE RABBI

Acts 7:58; Acts 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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. Stephen’s 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. Paul’s early life and training as the ew 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. Paul’s 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 Acts 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 Philippians 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 2 Corinthians 11:22. ow 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 Acts 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." ow this statement of Jerome, written four hundred years after the event, is clearly inaccurate in many respects, and plainly contradicts the Apostle’s own words that he was born in Tarsus.

But yet the story probably embodies a tradition substantially true, that St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s more immediate family connections have also some light thrown upon them in the ew Testament. We learn, for instance, from Acts 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 Romans 16:7; Romans 16:11, he sends salutations to Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion, his kinsmen, who were residents in Rome; and in verse 21 [Romans 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 mother’s 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." [Acts 9:26-27] This ancient friendship enabled Barnabas to pursue the Apostle with those offices of consolation which his nascent faith demanded. He knew Saul’s boyhood haunts, and therefore it is we read in Acts 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 friend’s 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. Timothy’s 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s own later teaching flourished so wondrously in the life of Timothy. Let us pass on, however, to a period of later development. St. Paul’s 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 father’s 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 Apostle’s 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. Paul’s 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 tent

making, 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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 by which 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. [Acts 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 quotations from the Greek poets Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander, to prove the attention which the Apostle must have bestowed upon them. {See Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12, 1 Corinthians 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 Gamaliel’s 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. Paul’s whole soul and can be traced all through St. Paul’s 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 Gamaliel’s 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 "unc 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 Philo’s 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 God’s 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 God’s grace may descend and the Divine Spirit may change the main directions of a man’s 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 one’s 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 casuist’s 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. Paul’s 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 Gamaliel’s 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 1 Corinthians 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. Paul’s mystical explanation of Galatians 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. Paul’s 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 Habakkuk 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.

MACLARE, "THE YOUG SAUL AD THE AGED PAUL 1Acts 7:58. - Philemon 1:9.A far greater difference than that which was measured by years separated the young Saul from the aged Paul. By years, indeed, the difference was, perhaps, not so great as the words might suggest, for Jewish usage extended the term of youth farther than we do, and began age sooner. o doubt, too, Paul’s life had aged him fast, and probably there were not thirty years between the two periods. But the difference between him and himself at the beginning and the end of his career was a gulf; and his life was not evolution, but revolution.

At the beginning you see a brilliant young Pharisee, Gamaliel’s promising pupil, advanced above many who were his equals in his own religion, as he says himself; living after its straitest sect, and eager to have the smallest part in what seemed to him the righteous slaying of one of the followers of the blaspheming azarene. At the end he was himself one of these followers. He had cast off, as folly, the wisdom which took him so much pains to acquire. He had turned his back upon all the brilliant prospects of distinction which were opening to him. He had broken with countrymen and kindred. And what had he made of it? He had been persecuted, hunted, assailed by every weapon that his old companions could fashion or wield; he is a solitary man, laden with many cares, and accustomed to look perils and death in the face; he is a prisoner, and in a year or two more he will be a martyr. If he were an apostate and a renegade, it was not for what he could get by it.What made the change? The vision of Jesus Christ. If we think of the transformation on Saul, its causes and its outcome, we shall get lessons which I would fain press upon your hearts now. Do you wonder that I would urge on you just such a life as that of this man as your highest good?I. I would note, then, first, that faith in Jesus Christ will transform and ennoble any life.It has been customary of late years, amongst people who do not like miracles, and do not believe in sudden changes of character, to allege that Paul’s conversion was but the appearance, on the surface, of an underground process that had been going on ever since he kept the witnesses’ clothes. Modern critics know a great deal more about the history of Paul’s conversion than Paul did. For to him there was no consciousness of undermining, but the change was instantaneous. He left Jerusalem a bitter persecutor, exceeding mad against the followers of the azarene, thinking that Jesus was a blasphemer and an impostor, and His disciples pestilent vermin, to be harried off the face of the earth. He entered Damascus a lowly disciple of that Christ. His conversion was not an underground process that had been silently sapping the foundations of his life; it was an explosion. And what caused it? What

was it that came on that day on the Damascus road, amid the blinding sunshine of an Eastern noontide? The vision of Jesus Christ. An overwhelming conviction flooded his soul that He whom he had taken to be an impostor, richly deserving the Cross that He endured, was living in glory, and was revealing Himself to Saul then and there. That truth crumbled his whole past into nothing; and he stood there trembling and astonished, like a man the ruins of whose house have fallen about his ears. He bowed himself to the vision. He surrendered at discretion without a struggle. ‘Immediately,’ says he, ‘I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,’ and when he said ‘Lord, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?’ he flung open the gates of the fortress for the Conqueror to come in. The vision of Christ reversed his judgments, transformed his character, revolutionised his life.That initial impulse operated through all the rest of his career. Hearken to him: ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. To me to live is Christ. Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Living or dying, we are the Lord’s.’ ‘We labour that whether present or absent, we may be accepted of Him.’ The transforming agency was the vision of Christ, and the bowing of the man’s whole nature before the seen Saviour.eed I recall to you how noble a life issued from that fountain? I am sure that I need do no more than mention in a word or two the wondrous activity, flashing like a flame of fire from East to West, and everywhere kindling answering flames, the noble self-oblivion, the continual communion with God and the Unseen, and all the other great virtues and nobleness which came from such sources as these. I need only, I am sure, remind you of them, and draw this lesson, that the secret of a transforming and noble life is to be found in faith in Jesus Christ. The vision that changed Paul is as available for you and me. For it is all a mistake to suppose that the essence of it is the miraculous appearance that flashed upon the Apostle’s eyes. He speaks of it himself, in one of his letters, in other language, when he says, ‘It pleased God to reveal His Son in me.’ And that revelation in all its fulness, in all its sweetness, in all its transforming and ennobling power, is offered to every one of us. For the eye of faith is no less gifted with the power of direct and certain vision-yea! is even more gifted with this-than is the eye of sense. ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.’ Christ is revealed to each one of us as really, as veritably, and the revelation may become as strong an impulse and motive in our lives as ever it was to the Apostle on the Damascus road. What is wanted is not revelation, but the bowed will-not the heavenly vision, but obedience to the vision. I suppose that most of you think that you believe all that about Jesus Christ, which transformed Gamaliel’s pupil into Christ’s disciple. And what has it done for you? In many cases, nothing. Be sure of this, dear young friends, that the shortest way to a life adorned with all grace, with all nobility, fragrant with all goodness, and permanent as that life which does the will of God must clearly be, is this, to bow before the seen Christ, seen in His word, and speaking to your hearts, and to take His yoke and carry His burden. Then you will build upon what will stand, and make your days noble and your lives stable. If you build on anything else, the structure will come down with a crash some day, and bury you in its ruins. Surely it is better to learn the worthlessness of a non-Christian life, in the light of His merciful face, when there is yet time to change our course, than to see it by the fierce light of the great White Throne set for judgment. We

must each of us learn it here or there.II. Faith in Christ will make a joyful life, whatever its circumstances.I have said that, judged by the standard of the Exchange, or by any of the standards which men usually apply to success in life, this life of the Apostle was a failure. We know, without my dwelling more largely upon it, what he gave up. We know what, to outward appearance, he gained by his Christianity. You remember, perhaps, how he himself speaks about the external aspects of his life in one place, where he says ‘Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place, and labour, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat. We are made as the filth of the world, and as the offscouring of all things unto this day.’That was one side of it. Was that all? This man had that within him which enabled him to triumph over all trials. There is nothing more remarkable about him than the undaunted courage, the unimpaired elasticity of spirit, the buoyancy of gladness, which bore him high upon the waves of the troubled sea in which he had to swim. If ever there was a man that had a bright light burning within him, in the deepest darkness, it was that little weather-beaten Jew, whose ‘bodily presence was weak, and his speech contemptible.’ And what was it that made him master of circumstances, and enabled him to keep sunshine in his heart when winter bound all the world around him? What made this bird sing in a darkened cage? One thing-the continual presence, consciously with Him by faith, of that Christ who had revolutionised his life, and who continued to bless and to gladden it. I have quoted his description of his external condition. Let me quote two or three words that indicate how he took all that sea of troubles and of sorrows that poured its waves and its billows over him. ‘In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us.’ ‘As the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation aboundeth also by Christ.’ ‘For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed day by day.’ ‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.’ ‘I have learned in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content.’ ‘As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things.’There is the secret of blessedness, my friends; there is the fountain of perpetual joy. Cling to Christ, set His will on the throne of your hearts, give the reins of your life and of your character into His keeping, and nothing ‘that is at enmity with joy’ can either ‘abolish or destroy’ the calm blessedness of your spirits.You will have much to suffer; you will have something to give up. Your life may look, to men whose tastes have been vulgarised by the glaring brightnesses of this vulgar world, but grey and sombre, but it will have in it the calm abiding blessedness which is more than joy, and is diviner and more precious than the tumultuous transports of gratified sense or successful ambition. Christ is peace, and He gives His peace to us; and then He gives a joy which does not break but enhances peace. We are all tempted to look for our gladness in creatures, each of which satisfies but a part of our desire. But no man can be truly blessed who has to find many contributories to make up his blessedness. That which makes us rich must be, not a multitude of precious stones, howsoever precious they may be, but one Pearl of

great price; the one Christ who is our only joy. And He says to us that He gives us Himself, if we behold Him and bow to Him, that His joy might remain in us, and that our joy might be full, while all other gladnesses are partial and transitory. Faith in Christ makes life blessed. The writer of Ecclesiastes asked the question which the world has been asking ever since: ‘Who knoweth what is good for a man in this life, all the days of this vain life which he passeth as a shadow?’ You young people are asking, ‘Who will show us any good?’ Here is the answer-Faith in Christ and obedience to Him; that is the good part which no man taketh from us. Dear young friend, have you made it yours?III. Faith in Christ produces a life which bears being looked back upon.In a later Epistle than that from which my second text is taken, we get one of the most lovely pictures that was ever drawn, albeit it is unconsciously drawn, of a calm old age, very near the gate of death; and looking back with a quiet heart over all the path of life. I am not going to preach to you, dear friends, in the flush of your early youth, a gospel which is only to be recommended because it is good to die by, but it will do even you, at the beginning, no harm to realise for a moment that the end will come, and that retrospect will take the place in your lives which hope and anticipation fill now. And I ask you what you expect to feel and say then?What did Paul say? ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.’ He was not self-righteous; but it is possible to have lived a life which, as the world begins to fade, vindicates itself as having been absolutely right in its main trend, and to feel that the dawning light of Eternity confirms the choice that we made. And I pray you to ask yourselves, ‘Is my life of that sort?’ How much of it would bear the scrutiny which will have to come, and which in Paul’s case was so quiet and calm? He had had a stormy day, many a thundercloud had darkened the sky, many a tempest had swept across the plain; but now, as the evening draws on, the whole West is filled with a calm amber light, and all across the plain, right away to the grey East, he sees that he has been led by, and has been willing to walk in, the right way to the ‘City of habitation.’ Would that be your experience if the last moment came now?There will be, for the best of us, much sense of failure and shortcoming when we look back on our lives. But whilst some of us will have to say, ‘I have played the fool and erred exceedingly,’ it is possible for each of us to lay himself down in peace and sleep, awaiting a glorious rising again and a crown of righteousness.Dear young friends, it is for you to choose whether your past, when you summon it up before you, will look like a wasted wilderness, or like a garden of the Lord. And though, as I have said, there will always be much sense of failure and shortcoming, yet that need not disturb the calm retrospect; for whilst memory sees the sins, faith can grasp the Saviour, and quietly take leave of life, saying, ‘I know in whom I have believed, and that He is able to keep that which I have committed to Him against that day.’So I press upon you all this one truth, that faith in Jesus Christ will transform, will ennoble, will make joyous your lives whilst you live, and will give you a quiet heart in the retrospect when you come to die. Begin right, dear young friends. You will never find it so easy to take any decisive step, and most of all this chiefest step, as you do to-day. You will get lean and less flexible as you get older. You will get set in your ways. Habits will twine their tendrils round you, and hinder your free

movement. The truth of the Gospel will become commonplace by familiarity. Associations and companions will have more and more power over you; and you will be stiffened as an old tree-trunk is stiffened. You cannot count on to-morrow; be wise to-day. Begin this year aright. Why should you not now see the Christ and welcome Him? I pray that every one of us may behold Him and fall before Him with the cry, ‘Lord! what wilt Thou have me to do?’1 To the young.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

BARES, "Calling upon God - The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, “They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus,” etc. That is, he was engaged “in prayer” to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express “prayer” in the following, among other places: 2 Corinthians 1:23, “I call God to witness”; 1 Peter 1:17, “And if ye call on the Father,” etc.; Acts 2:21, “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord,” etc.; Acts 9:14; Acts 22:16; Romans 10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed - in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him. For if Stephen was inspired, it settles the question. The example of an inspired man in such circumstances is a safe and correct example. If it should be said that the inspiration of Stephen cannot be made out, yet the inspiration of Luke, who has recorded it, will not be called into question. Then the following circumstances show that he, an inspired man, regarded it as right, and as a proper example to be followed:

(1)He has recorded it without the slightest expression of an opinion that it was improper. On the contrary, there is every evidence that he regarded the conduct of Stephen in this case as right and praiseworthy. There is, therefore, this attestation to its propriety.

(2)the Spirit who inspired Luke knew what use would be made of this case. He knew that it would be used as an example, and as an evidence that it was right to worship the Lord Jesus. It is one of the cases which has been used to perpetuate the worship of the Lord Jesus in every age. If it was wrong, it is inconceivable that it should be recorded without some expression of disapprobation.

(3)the case is strikingly similar to that recorded in John 20:28, where Thomas offered worship to the Lord Jesus “as his God,” without reproof. If Thomas did it in the presence of the Saviour without reproof, it was right. If Stephen did it without any expression of disapprobation from the inspired historian, it was right.(4)these examples were used to encourage Christians and Christian martyrs to offer homage to Jesus Christ. Thus, Pliny, writing to the Emperor Trajan, and giving an account of the Christians in Bithynia, says that they were accustomed to meet and “sing hymns to Christ as to God” (Latriner).(5)it is worthy of remark that Stephen, in his death, offered the same act of homage to Christ that Christ himself did to the Father when he died, Luke 23:46. From all these considerations, it follows that the Lord Jesus is a proper object of worship; that in most solemn circumstances it is right to call upon him, to worship him, and to commit our dearest interests to his hands. If this may be done, he is divine.Receive my spirit - That is, receive it to thyself; take it to thine abode in heaven.

CLARKE, "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God - The word God is not found in any MS. or version, nor in any of the primitive fathers except Chrysostom. It is not genuine, and should not be inserted here: the whole sentence literally reads thus: And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! Here is a most manifest proof that prayer is offered to Jesus Christ; and that in the most solemn circumstances in which it could be offered, viz., when a man was breathing his last. This is, properly speaking, one of the highest acts of worship which can be offered to God; and, if Stephen had not conceived Jesus Christ to be God, could he have committed his soul into his hands?

We may farther observe that this place affords a full proof of the immateriality of the soul; for he could not have commended his spirit to Christ, had he believed that he had no spirit, or, in other words, that his body and soul were one and the same thing. Allowing this most eminent saint to have had a correct notion of theology, and that, being full of the Holy Ghost, as he was at this time, he could make no mistake in matters of such vast weight and importance, then these two points are satisfactorily stated in this verse:

That Jesus Christ is God; for Stephen died praying to him.2. That the soul is immaterial; for Stephen, in dying, commends his departing spirit into the hand of Christ.

GILL, "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God,.... As he was praying, and putting up the following petition;

and saying, Lord Jesus receive my Spirit; from whence we learn, that the spirit or soul of man sleeps not, nor dies with the body, but remains after death; that Jesus Christ is a fit person to commit and commend the care of the soul unto immediately upon its separation; and that he must be truly and properly God; not only because he is equal to such a charge, which none but God is, but because divine worship and adoration are here given him. This is so glaring a proof of prayer being made unto him, that some Socinians, perceiving the force of it, would read the word Jesus in

the genitive case, thus; "Lord of Jesus receive my Spirit": as if the prayer was made to the Father of Christ, when it is Jesus he saw standing at the right hand of God, whom he invokes, and who is so frequently called Lord Jesus; whereas the Father is never called the Lord of Jesus; and besides, these words are used in like manner in the vocative case, in Revelation 22:20 to which may be added, that the Syriac version reads, "our Lord Jesus"; and the Ethiopic version, "my Lord Jesus".

JAMISO,"calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus, etc. — An unhappy supplement of our translators is the word “God” here; as if, while addressing the Son, he was really calling upon the Father. The sense is perfectly clear without any supplement at all - “calling upon [invoking] and saying, Lord Jesus”; Christ being the Person directly invoked and addressed by name (compare Acts 9:14). Even Grotius, De Wette, Meyer, etc., admit this, adding several other examples of direct prayer to Christ; and Pliny, in his well-known letter to the Emperor Trajan (a.d. 110 or 111), says it was part of the regular Christian service to sing, in alternate strains, a hymn to Christ as God.

Lord Jesus, receive my spirit — In presenting to Jesus the identical prayer which He Himself had on the cross offered to His Father, Stephen renders to his glorified Lord absolute divine worship, in the most sublime form, and at the most solemn moment of his life. In this commitment of his spirit to Jesus, Paul afterwards followed his footsteps with a calm, exultant confidence that with Him it was safe for eternity (2 Timothy 1:12).

CALVI, "And the witnesses. Luke signifieth, that even in that tumult they observed some show of judgment. This was not commanded in vain that the witnesses should throw the first stone; because, seeing they must commit the murder with their own hands, many are holden with a certain dread, who otherwise are less afraid to cut the throats of the innocent with perjury of the tongue. But in the mean season, we gather how blind and mad the ungodliness of these witnesses was, who are not afraid to imbrue their bloody hands with the blood of an innocent, who had already committed murder with their tongues. Whereas he saith, that their clothes were laid down at the feet of Saul, he showeth that there was no let in him, but that being cast into a reprobate sense he might have perished with the rest. (483) For who would not think that he was a desperate, [desperado,] who had infected his youth with such cruelty? (484) either is his age expressed to lessen his fault, as some unskillful men go about to prove; for he was of those years, that want of knowledge could no whit excuse him. And Luke will shortly after declare, that he was sent by the high priest to persecute the faithful. Therefore he was no child, he might well be counted a man. Why, then, is his youth mentioned? That every man may consider with himself what great hurt he might have done in God’s Church, unless Christ had bridled him betimes. And therein appeareth a most notable token both of God’s power and also of his grace, in that he tamed a fierce and wild beast in his chief fury, even in a moment, and in that he extolled a miserable murderer so highly who through his wickedness was drowned almost in the deep pit of hell.

59.Calling on. Because he had uttered words enough before men, though in vain, he

turneth himself now unto God for good causes, and armeth himself with prayer to suffer all things. For although we have need to run unto God’s help every minute of an hour during our whole warfare, yet we have greatest need to call upon God in the last conflict, which is the hardest.

And Luke expresseth again how furious mad they were, because their cruelty was not assuaged even when they saw the servant of Christ praying humbly. Furthermore, here is set down a prayer of Stephen having two members. In the former member, where he commendeth his spirit to Christ, he showeth the constancy of his faith. In the other, where he prayeth for his enemies, he testifieth his love towards men. Forasmuch as the whole perfection of godliness consisteth upon [of] these two parts, we have in the death of Stephen a rare example of a godly and holy death. It is to be thought that he used many more words, but the sum tendeth to this end.

Lord Jesus. I have already said, that this prayer was a witness of confidence; and surely the courageousness and violentness (485) of Stephen was great, that when as he saw the stones fly about his ears, wherewith he should be stoned by and by; when as he heareth cruel curses and reproaches against his head, he yet stayeth himself meekly (486) upon the grace of Christ. In like sort, the Lord will have his servants to be brought to nought as it were sometimes, to the end their salvation may be the more wonderful, And let us define this salvation not by the understanding of our flesh, (487) but by faith. We see how Stephen leaneth not unto the judgment of the flesh, but rather assuring himself, even in very destruction, that he shall be saved, he suffereth death with a quiet mind. For undoubtedly he was assured of this, that our life is hid with Christ in God, (Colossians 3:3.)

Therefore, casting off all care of the body, he is content to commit his soul into the hands of Christ. For he could not pray thus from his heart, unless, having forgotten this life, he had cast off all care of the same.

It behoveth us with David (Psalms 31:6) to commit our souls into the hands of God daily so long as we are in the world, because we are environed with a thousand deaths, that God may deliver our life from all dangers; but when we must die indeed, and we are called thereunto, we must fly unto this prayer, that Christ will receive our spirit. For he commended his own spirit into the hands of his Father, to this end, that he may keep ours for ever. This is an inestimable comfort, in that we know our souls do not wander up and down (488) when they flit out of our bodies, but that Christ receiveth them, that he may keep them faithfully, if we commend them into his hands. This hope ought to encourage us to suffer death patiently. Yea, whosoever commendeth his soul to Christ with an earnest affection of faith, he must needs resign himself wholly to his pleasure and will. And this place doth plainly testify that the soul of man is no vain blast which vanisheth away, as some frantic fellows imagine dotingly, (489) but that it is an essential spirit which liveth after this life. Furthermore, we are taught hereby that we call upon Christ rightly and lawfully, because all power is given him of the Father, for this cause, that all men may commit themselves to his tuition. (490)

BESO, "Acts 7:59-60. And thus they stoned Stephen — Who, during this furious assault, continued with his eyes fixed on the heavenly glory, of which he had so bright a vision, calling upon God — The word God is not in the original, which is literally, invoking; and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit — For Christ was the person to whom he prayed: and surely such a solemn prayer addressed to him, in which a departing soul was thus committed into his hands, was such an act of worship as no good man could have paid to a mere creature; Stephen here worshipping Christ in the very same manner in which Christ worshipped the Father on the cross. And he kneeled down, &c. — Having nothing further relating to himself which could give him any solicitude, all his remaining thoughts were occupied in compassion to these inhuman wretches, who were employed in effecting his destruction. Having, therefore, as we have reason to suppose, received many violent blows, rising as well as he could upon his knees, he cried, though with an expiring, yet with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge — With severity proportionable to the weight of the offence, but graciously forgive them, as indeed I do from my heart. The original expression, µη στησης αυτοις την αµαρτιαν, has a peculiar emphasis, and is not easy to be exactly translated, without multiplying words to an improper degree. It is literally weigh not out to them this sin; that is, a punishment proportionable to it; alluding, it seems, to passages of Scripture where God is represented as weighing men’s characters and actions in the dispensations of his justice and providence. This prayer of Stephen was heard, and remarkably answered, in the conversion of Saul, of whose history we shall shortly hear more. When he had said this — Calmly resigning his soul into the Saviour’s hand, with a sacred serenity, in the midst of this furious assault, he sweetly fell asleep — Leaving the traces of a gentle composure, rather than a horror, upon his breathless corpse.

COFFMA, "The peculiar construction here has the effect of making "calling upon the Lord" equivalent to praying to Jesus personally. This is one of the few prayers in the ew Testament directed to the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than to the Father through him.

Receive my spirit ... This is a testimony to the fact that one's spirit lives apart from the body; for Stephen asked the Lord to receive his spirit in the very act of his body's death.

COKE, "Acts 7:59. And they stoned Stephen,— While they stoned Stephen, he prayed, and said, &c. Literally, They stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, &c. There is nothing for the word God in the original. A solemn prayer, like this to Christ, in which a departing soul is thus committed into his hands, is such an act of worship as no good man would have paid to a mere creature, Stephen here worshipping Christ in the very same manner in whichChrist worshipped the Father on the cross. This stoning seems to have been an act of popular fury, like the stoning of St. Paul at Lystra, ch. Acts 14:19 and exceeding the power which the Jews regularly had. The Jews were more than once ready to stone Christ, not only when

by their own confession they had not power to put any one to death, but when nothing had passed which had the shadow of a legal trial. How far they might now have formed those express notions of what the rabbies called the judgment of zeal, is uncertain; but it is plain they acted on that principle, and as if they had thought every private Israelite had, like Phineas, who is pleaded as an example of it, a right to put another to deathon the spot, if he found him in a capital breach of the divine law; a notion directly contrary to Deuteronomy 17:6 which requires at least two witnesses in capital cases, where there is a legal process. The manner of their stoning persons was this: a crier went before him who was to die, proclaiming his name, his crime, and those who were witnesses against him. When they were come within two or three yards of the place of execution, they stripped the criminal naked, except a small covering, for decency, about his middle. The place of execution, from which they threw down the malefactor, was above twice the height of a man, upon which he was made to ascend with his hands bound. When he was ascended, the witnesses laid their hands upon him, and then stripped off their upper garments, that they might be fitter for going through the execution. From that high place one of the witnesses threw down the criminal, and dashed his loins against a great stone, which was laid there for that very purpose; if that killed him not, then the other witness threw from thesame height a great stone upon his heart, as he lay on his back, and was stunned with the fall. If that dispatched him not, then all the people fell on him with stones till he died.

COSTABLE 59-60, "Stephen called upon the Lord (Gr. epikaloumenon), as Peter had exhorted his hearers to do for deliverance (Acts 2:21). Stephen died as Jesus did, with prayers for his executioners being his last words (cf. Luke 23:34; Luke 23:46; cf. 2 Chronicles 24:22; Luke 6:27-28). However, Stephen prayed to Jesus whereas Jesus prayed to His Father. Luke probably wanted his readers to connect the two executions, but they were not exactly the same. Some commentators have argued that Luke presented Stephen's execution as a reenactment of Jesus' execution. [ote: E.g., Charles H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics, p. 76.]

"Between Stephen and Jesus there was communion of nature, there was communion of testimony, there was communion of suffering, and finally there was communion of triumph." [ote: Morgan, p. 142.]Stephen's body, not his soul, fell asleep to await resurrection (cf. Acts 13:36; John 11:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; et al.).

"For Stephen the whole dreadful turmoil finished in a strange peace. He fell asleep. To Stephen there came the peace which comes to the man who has done the right thing even if the right thing kills him." [ote: Barclay, p. 62.]"As Paul is to become Luke's hero, in that he more than any other single man was instrumental in spreading the Gospel throughout the Gentile world, so Stephen here receives honourable recognition as the man who first saw the wider implications of the Church's faith and laid the foundations on which the mission to the Gentiles was built." [ote: eil, p. 105.]

PETT, "‘And they stoned Stephen, calling on the Lord, and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

But as they stoned him, Stephen looked up to heaven and prayed to ‘the Lord’, calling out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. He had no doubt in his heart, only joy, and concern for those who were doing this to him. We can compare here Jesus’ own words on the cross, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Stephen, exalted in spirit, wanted it known that he was going like his Master. The parallel is significant. It equates the Father and the Lord Jesus, both of Whom are seen as receiving the spirits of the godly when they die.

‘Lord Jesus.’ Thus use of Lord here is very significant. Throughout his speech ‘the Lord’ has been cited from the Old Testament and has meant Yahweh. Here he now refers the same title to Jesus. he has no doubt Whom the One He has seen really is.

MACLARE, "THE DEATH OF THE MASTER AD THE DEATH OF THE SERVATActs 7:59 - Acts 7:60.This is the only narrative in the ew Testament of a Christian martyrdom or death. As a rule, Scripture is supremely indifferent to what becomes of the people with whom it is for a time concerned. As long as the man is the organ of the divine Spirit he is somewhat; as soon as that ceases to speak through him he drops into insignificance. So this same Acts of the Apostles-if I may so say- kills off James the brother of John in a parenthesis; and his is the only other martyrdom that it concerns itself even so much as to mention.

Why, then, this exceptional detail about the martyrdom of Stephen? For two reasons: because it is the first of a series, and the Acts of the Apostles always dilates upon the first of each set of things which it describes, and condenses about the others. But more especially, I think, because if we come to look at the story, it is not so much an account of Stephen’s death as of Christ’s power in Stephen’s death. And the theme of this book is not the acts of the Apostles, but the acts of the risen Lord, in and for His Church.There is no doubt but that this narrative is modelled upon the story of our Lord’s Crucifixion, and the two incidents, in their similarities and in their differences, throw a flood of light upon one another.I shall therefore look at our subject now with constant reference to that other greater death upon which it is based. It is to be observed that the two sayings on the lips of the proto-martyr Stephen are recorded for us in their original form on the lips of Christ, in Luke’s Gospel, which makes a still further link of connection between the two narratives.So, then, my purpose now is merely to take this incident as it lies before us, to trace in it the analogies and the differences between the death of the Master and the death of the servant, and to draw from it some thoughts as to what it is possible for a Christian’s death to become, when Christ’s presence is felt in it.I. Consider, in general terms, this death as the last act of imitation to Christ.

The resemblance between our Lord’s last moments and Stephen’s has been thought to have been the work of the narrator, and, consequently, to cast some suspicion upon the veracity of the narrative. I accept the correspondence, I believe it was intentional, but I shift the intention from the writer to the actor, and I ask why it should not have been that the dying martyr should consciously, and of set purpose, have made his death conformable to his Master’s death? Why should not the dying martyr have sought to put himself {as the legend tells one of the other Apostles in outward form sought to do} in Christ’s attitude, and to die as He died?Remember, that in all probability Stephen died on Calvary. It was the ordinary place of execution, and, as many of you may know, recent investigations have led many to conclude that a little rounded knoll outside the city wall-not a ‘green hill,’ but still ‘outside a city wall,’ and which still bears a lingering tradition of connection with Him-was probably the site of that stupendous event. It was the place of stoning, or of public execution, and there in all probability, on the very ground where Christ’s Cross was fixed, His first martyr saw ‘the heavens opened and Christ standing on the right hand of God.’ If these were the associations of the place, what more natural, and even if they were not, what more natural, than that the martyr’s death should be shaped after his Lord’s?Is it not one of the great blessings, in some sense the greatest of the blessings, which we owe to the Gospel, that in that awful solitude where no other example is of any use to us, His pattern may still gleam before us? Is it not something to feel that as life reaches its highest, most poignant and exquisite delight and beauty in the measure in which it is made an imitation of Jesus, so for each of us death may lose its most poignant and exquisite sting and sorrow, and become something almost sweet, if it be shaped after the pattern and by the power of His? We travel over a lonely waste at last. All clasped hands are unclasped; and we set out on the solitary, though it be ‘the common, road into the great darkness.’ But, blessed be His ame! ‘the Breaker is gone up before us,’ and across the waste there are footprints that we‘Seeing, may take heart again.’The very climax and apex of the Christian imitation of Christ may be that we shall bear the image of His death, and be like Him then.Is it not a strange thing that generations of martyrs have gone to the stake with their hearts calm and their spirits made constant by the remembrance of that Calvary where Jesus died with more of trembling reluctance, shrinking, and apparent bewildered unmanning than many of the weakest of His followers? Is it not a strange thing that the death which has thus been the source of composure, and strength, and heroism to thousands, and has lost none of its power of being so to-day, was the death of a Man who shrank from the bitter cup, and that cried in that mysterious darkness, ‘My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’Dear brethren, unless with one explanation of the reason for His shrinking and agony, Christ’s death is less heroic than that of some other martyrs, who yet drew all their courage from Him.How come there to be in Him, at one moment, calmness unmoved, and heroic self-oblivion, and at the next, agony, and all but despair? I know only one explanation, ‘The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’ And when He died, shrinking and trembling, and feeling bewildered and forsaken, it was your sins and mine that weighed Him down. The servant whose death was conformed to his Master’s had

none of these experiences because he was only a martyr.The Lord had them, because He was the Sacrifice for the whole world.II. We have here, next, a Christian’s death as being the voluntary entrusting of the spirit to Christ.‘They stoned Stephen.’ ow, our ordinary English idea of the manner of the Jewish punishment of stoning, is a very inadequate and mistaken one. It did not consist merely in a miscellaneous rabble throwing stones at the criminal, but there was a solemn and appointed method of execution which is preserved for us in detail in the Rabbinical books. And from it we gather that the modus operandi was this. The blasphemer was taken to a certain precipitous rock, the height of which was prescribed as being equal to that of two men. The witnesses by whose testimony he had been condemned had to cast him over, and if he survived the fall it was their task to roll upon him a great stone, of which the weight is prescribed in the Talmud as being as much as two men could lift. If he lived after that, then others took part in the punishment.ow, at some point in that ghastly tragedy, probably, we may suppose as they were hurling him over the rock, the martyr lifts his voice in this prayer of our text.As they were stoning him he ‘called upon’-not God, as our Authorised Version has supplied the wanting word, but, as is obvious from the context and from the remembrance of the vision, and from the language of the following supplication, ‘called upon Jesus, saying, Lord Jesus! receive my spirit.’I do not dwell at any length upon the fact that here we have a distinct instance of prayer to Jesus Christ, a distinct recognition, in the early days of His Church, of the highest conceptions of His person and nature, so as that a dying man turns to Him, and commits his soul into His hands. Passing this by, I ask you to think of the resemblance, and the difference, between this intrusting of the spirit by Stephen to his Lord, and the committing of His spirit to the Father by His dying Son. Christ on the Cross speaks to God; Stephen, on Calvary, speaks, as I suppose, to Jesus Christ. Christ, on the Cross, says, ‘I commit.’ Stephen says, ‘Receive,’ or rather, ‘Take.’ The one phrase carries in it something of the notion that our Lord died not because He must, but because He would; that He was active in His death; that He chose to summon death to do its work upon Him; that He ‘yielded up His spirit,’ as one of the Evangelists has it, pregnantly and significantly. But Stephen says, ‘Take!’ as knowing that it must be his Lord’s power that should draw his spirit out of the coil of horror around him. So the one dying word has strangely compacted in it authority and submission; and the other dying word is the word of a simple waiting servant. The Christ says, ‘I commit.’ ‘I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again.’ Stephen says, ‘Take my spirit,’ as longing to be away from the weariness and the sorrow and the pain and all the hell of hatred that was seething and boiling round about him, but yet knowing that he had to wait the Master’s will.So from the language I gather large truths, truths which unquestionably were not present to the mind of the dying man, but are all the more conspicuous because they were unconsciously expressed by him, as to the resemblance and the difference between the death of the martyr, done to death by cruel hands, and the death of the atoning Sacrifice who gave Himself up to die for our sins.Here we have, in this dying cry, the recognition of Christ as the Lord of life and

death. Here we have the voluntary and submissive surrender of the spirit to Him. So, in a very real sense, the martyr’s death becomes a sacrifice, and he too dies not merely because he must, but he accepts the necessity, and finds blessedness in it. We need not be passive in death; we need not, when it comes to our turn to die, cling desperately to the last vanishing skirts of life. We may yield up our being, and pour it out as a libation; as the Apostle has it, ‘If I be offered as a drink-offering upon the sacrifice of your faith, I joy and rejoice.’ Oh! brethren, to die like Christ, to die yielding oneself to Him!And then in these words there is further contained the thought coming gleaming out like a flash of light into some murky landscape-of passing into perennial union with Him. ‘Take my spirit,’ says the dying man; ‘that is all I want. I see Thee standing at the right hand. For what hast Thou started to Thy feet, from the eternal repose of Thy session at the right hand of God the Father Almighty? To help and succour me. And dost Thou succour me when Thou dost let these cruel hands cast me from the rock and bruise me with heavy stones? Yes, Thou dost. For the highest form of Thy help is to take my spirit, and to let me be with Thee.’Christ delivers His servant from death when He leads the servant into and through death. Brothers, can you look forward thus, and trust yourselves, living or dying, to that Master who is near us amidst the coil of human troubles and sorrows, and sweetly draws our spirits, as a mother her child to her bosom, into His own arms when He sends us death? Is that what it will be to you?III. Then, still further, there are other words here which remind us of the final triumph of an all-forbearing charity.Stephen had been cast from the rock, had been struck with the heavy stone. Bruised and wounded by it, he strangely survives, strangely somehow or other struggles to his knees even though desperately wounded, and, gathering all his powers together at the impulse of an undying love, prays his last words and cries, ‘Lord Jesus! Lay not this sin to their charge!’It is an echo, as I have been saying, of other words, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ An echo, and yet an independent tone! The one cries ‘Father!’ the other invokes the ‘Lord.’ The one says, ‘They know not what they do’; the other never thinks of reading men’s motives, of apportioning their criminality, of discovering the secrets of their hearts. It was fitting that the Christ, before whom all these blind instruments of a mighty design stood patent and naked to their deepest depths, should say, ‘They know not what they do.’ It would have been unfitting that the servant, who knew no more of his fellows’ heart than could be guessed from their actions, should have offered such a plea in his prayer for their forgiveness.In the very humiliation of the Cross, Christ speaks as knowing the hidden depths of men’s souls, and therefore fitted to be their Judge, and now His servant’s prayer is addressed to Him as actually being so.Somehow or other, within a very few years of the time when our Lord dies, the Church has come to the distinctest recognition of His Divinity to whom the martyr prays; to the distinctest recognition of Him as the Lord of life and death whom the martyr asks to take his spirit, and to the clearest perception of the fact that He is the Judge of the whole earth by whose acquittal men shall be acquitted, and by whose condemnation they shall be condemned.

Stephen knew that Christ was the Judge. He knew that in two minutes he would be standing at Christ’s judgment bar. His prayer was not, ‘Lay not my sins to my charge,’ but ‘Lay not this sin to their charge.’ Why did he not ask forgiveness for himself? Why was he not thinking about the judgment that he was going to meet so soon? He had done all that long ago. He had no fear about that judgment for himself, and so when the last hour struck, he was at leisure of heart and mind to pray for his persecutors, and to think of his Judge without a tremor. Are you? If you were as near the edge as Stephen was, would it be wise for you to be interceding for other people’s forgiveness? The answer to that question is the answer to this other one,-have you sought your pardon already, and got it at the hands of Jesus Christ?IV. One word is all that I need say about the last point of analogy and contrast here-the serene passage into rest: ‘When he had said this he fell asleep.’The ew Testament scarcely ever speaks of a Christian’s death as death but as sleep, and with other similar phrases. But that expression, familiar and all but universal as it is in the Epistles, in reference to the death of believers, is never in a single instance employed in reference to the death of Jesus Christ. He did die that you and I may live. His death was death indeed-He endured not merely the physical fact, but that which is its sting, the consciousness of sin. And He died that the sting might be blunted, and all its poison exhausted upon Him. So the ugly thing is sleeked and smoothed; and the foul form changes into the sweet semblance of a sleep-bringing angel. Death is gone. The physical fact remains, but all the misery of it, the essential bitterness and the poison of it is all sucked out of it, and it is turned into ‘he fell asleep,’ as a tired child on its mother’s lap, as a weary man after long toil.‘Thou thy worldly task hast done,Home art gone, and ta’en thy wages.’Death is but sleep now, because Christ has died, and that sleep is restful, conscious, perfect life.Look at these two pictures, the agony of the one, the calm triumph of the other, and see that the martyr’s falling asleep was possible because the Christ had died before. And do you commit the keeping of your souls to Him now, by true faith; and then, living you may have Him with you, and, dying, a vision of His presence bending down to succour and to save, and when you are dead, a life of rest conjoined with intensest activity. To sleep in Jesus is to awake in His likeness, and to be satisfied.

60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

BARES, "And he kneeled down - This seems to have been a “voluntary” kneeling; a placing himself in this position for the purpose of “prayer,” choosing to die in this attitude.

Lord - That is, Lord Jesus. See the notes on Acts 1:24.

Lay not … - Forgive them. This passage strikingly resembles the dying prayer of the Lord Jesus, Luke 23:34. othing but the Christian religion will enable a man to utter such sentiments in his dying moments.

He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

(1)The “peacefulness” of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

(2)The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24.In view of the death of this first Christian martyr, we may remark:

(1) That it is right to address to the Lord Jesus the language of prayer.(2) it is especially proper to do it in afflictions, and in the prospect of death, Hebrews 4:15.(3) sustaining grace will be derived in trials chiefly from a view of the Lord Jesus. If we can look to him as our Saviour; see him to be exalted to deliver us; and truly commit our souls to him, we shall find the grace which we need in our afflictions.(4) we should have such confidence in him as to enable us to commit ourselves to him at any time. To do this, we should live a life of faith. In health, and youth, and strength, we should seek him as our first and best friend.(5) while we are in health we should prepare to die. What an unfit place for preparation for death would have been the situation of Stephen! How impossible then would it have been to have made preparation! Yet the dying bed is often a place as unfit to prepare as were the circumstances of Stephen. When racked with pain; when faint and feeble; when the mind is indisposed to thought, or when it raves in the wildness of delirium, what an unfit place is this to prepare to die! I have seen many dying beds; I have seen many persons in all stages of their last sickness; but never have I yet seen a dying bed which seemed to me to be a proper place to make preparation for eternity.(6) how peaceful and calm is a death like that of Stephen, when compared with the alarms and anguish of a sinner! One moment of such peace in that trying time is better than all the pleasures and honors which the world can bestow; and to obtain such peace then, the dying sinner would be willing to give all the wealth of the Indies, and all the crowns of the earth. So may I die and so may all my readers -enabled, like this dying martyr, to commit my departing spirit to the sure keeping of the great Redeemer! When we take a parting view of the world; when our eyes shall

be turned for the last time to take a look of friends and relatives; when the darkness of death shall begin to come around us, then may we be enabled to cast the eye of faith to the heavens, and say, “Lord Jesus, receive our spirits.” Thus, may we fall asleep, peaceful in death, in the hope of the resurrection of the just.

CLARKE, "He kneeled down - That he might die as the subject of his heavenly Master - acting and suffering in the deepest submission to his Divine will and permissive providence; and, at the same time, showing the genuine nature of the religion of his Lord, in pouring out his prayers with his blood in behalf of his murderers!

Lay not this sin to their charge - That is, do not impute it to them so as to exact punishment. How much did the servant resemble his Lord, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do! This was the cry of our Lord in behalf of his murderers; and the disciple, closely copying his Master, in the same spirit, and with the same meaning, varies the expression, crying with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge! What an extent of benevolence! And in what a beautiful light does this place the spirit of the Christian religion! Christ had given what some have supposed to be an impossible command; Love your enemies; pray for them that despitefully use and persecute you. And Stephen shows here, in his own person, how practicable the grace of his Master had made this sublime precept.

He fell asleep - This was a common expression among the Jews to signify death, and especially the death of good men. But this sleep is, properly speaking, not attributable to the soul, but to the body; for he had commended his spirit to the Lord Jesus, while his body was overwhelmed with the shower of stones cast on him by the mob.

After the word εκοιµηθη, fell asleep, one MS. adds, εν ειρηνῃ, in peace; and the Vulgate has, in Domino, in the Lord. Both these readings are true, as to the state of St. Stephen; but I believe neither of them was written by St. Luke.

The first clause of the next chapter should come in here, And Saul was consenting unto his death: never was there a worse division than that which separated it from the end of this chapter: this should be immediately altered, and the amputated member restored to the body to which it belongs.

Though I have spoken pretty much at large on the punishment of stoning among the Jews, in the note on Leviticus 24:23, yet, as the following extracts will serve to bring the subject more fully into view, in reference to the case of St. Stephen, the reader will not be displeased to find them here. Dr. Lightfoot sums up the evidence he has collected on this subject, in the following particulars: -"I. The place of stoning was without the sanhedrin, according as it is said, bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp, Leviticus 24:14. It is a tradition, the place of stoning was without three camps. The gloss tells us that the court was the camp of the Divine Presence; the mountain of the temple, the camp of the Levites; and Jerusalem, the camp of Israel. ow, in every sanhedrin, in whatever city, the

place of stoning was without the city, as it was at Jerusalem.We are told the reason by the Gemarists, why the place of stoning was without the sanhedrin, and again without three camps: viz. If the Sanhedrin go forth and sit without the three camps, they make the place for stoning also distant from the sanhedrin, partly lest the sanhedrin should seem to kill the man; partly, that by the distance of the place there may be a little stop and space of time before the criminal come to the place of execution, if peradventure any one might offer some testimony that might make for him; for in the expectation of some such thing: -

"II. There stood 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 in behalf of the condemned person, he waves the handkerchief, and the horseman rides and calls back the people. ay, if the man himself say, I have something to offer in my own defense, they bring him back four or five times one after another, if it be any thing of moment that he hath to say." I doubt they hardly dealt so gently with the innocent Stephen.

"III. If no testimony arise that makes any thing for him, then they go on to stoning him: the crier proclaiming before him, '. the son of . comes forth to be stoned for such or such a crime. . and . are the witnesses against him; if any one have any thing to testify in his behalf, let him come forth and give his evidence.'

"IV. When they come within ten cubits of the place where he must be stoned, they exhort him to confess, for so it is the custom for the malefactor to confess, because every one that confesseth hath his part in the world to come, as we find in the instance of Achan, etc.

"V. When they come within four cubits of the place, they strip off his clothes, and make him naked.

"VI. The place of execution was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses throws him down upon his loins; if he roll on his breast, they turn him on his loins again. If he die so, well. If not, then the other witness takes up a stone, and lays it upon his heart. If he die so, well. If not, he is stoned by all Israel.

"VII. All that are stoned, are handed also, etc." These things I thought fit to transcribe the more largely, that the reader may compare this present action with this rule and common usage of doing it.

"It may be questioned for what crime this person was condemned to die? You will say for blasphemy for the have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God. But no one is condemned as a blasphemer, unless for abusing the sacred name with four letters, viz. יהוה YeHoVaH. Hence it is that although they oftentimes accused our Savior as a blasphemer, yet he was not condemned for this, but because he used witchcraft and deceived Israel, and seduced them into apostasy. And those are reckoned among persons that are to be stoned: He that evilly

persuades; and he that draws into apostasy; and he that is a conjuror."It may farther be questioned whether our blessed martyr was condemned by any formal sentence of the sanhedrin, or hurried in a tumultuary manner by the people; and so murdered: it seems to be the latter."The defense of Stephen against the charges produced by his accusers must be considered as being indirect; as they had a show of truth for the ground of their accusations, it would have been improper at once to have roundly denied the charge. There is no doubt that Stephen had asserted and proved Jesus to be the Christ or Messiah; and that the whole nation should consider him as such, receive his doctrine, obey him, or expose themselves to the terrible sentence denounced in the prophecy of Moses: Whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him, Deuteronomy 18:19; for they well knew that this word implied that Divine judgments should inevitably fall upon them. To make proper way for this conclusion, Stephen enters into a detail of their history, showing that, from the beginning, God had in view the dispensation which was now opening, and that his designs were uniformly opposed by their impious forefathers. That, notwithstanding all this, God carried on his work:First, by revealing his will to Abraham, and giving him the rite of circumcision, which was to be preserved among his descendants.Secondly, to Moses and Aaron in Egypt.

Thirdly, to the whole congregation of Israel at Mount Sinai, and variously in the wilderness.

Fourthly, by instituting the tabernacle worship, which was completed in the promised land, and continued till the days of Solomon, when the temple was builded, and the worship of God became fixed.

Fifthly, by the long race of prophets raised up under that temple, who had been all variously persecuted by their forefathers, who departed from the true worship, and frequently became idolatrous; in consequence of which God gave them up into the hands of their enemies, and they were carried into captivity.

How far St. Stephen would have proceeded, or to what issue he would have brought his discourse, we can only conjecture, as the fury of his persecutors did not permit him to come to a conclusion. But this they saw most clearly, that, from his statement, they could expect no mercy at the hand of God, if they persisted in their opposition to Jesus of azareth, and that their temple and political existence must fall a sacrifice to their persevering obstinacy. Their guilt stung them to the heart, and they were determined rather to vent their insupportable feelings by hostile and murderous acts, than in penitential sorrow and supplication for mercy. The issue was the martyrdom of Stephen; a man of whom the sacred writings give the highest character, and a man who illustrated that character in every part of his conduct. Stephen is generally called the proto-martyr, i.e. the First martyr or witness, as the word µαρτυρ implies; the person who, at the evident risk and ultimate loss of his life, bears testimony to Truth. This honor, however, may be fairly contested, and the

palm at least divided between him and John the Baptist. The martyrdom of Stephen, and the spirit in which he suffered, have been an honor to the cause for which he cheerfully gave up his life, for eighteen hundred years. While Christianity endures, (and it will endure till time is swallowed up in eternity), the martyrdom of Stephen will be the model, as it has been, for all martyrs, and a cause of triumph to the Church of God.

I cannot close these observations without making one remark on his prayer for his murderers. Though this shows most forcibly the amiable, forgiving spirit of the martyr, yet we must not forget that this, and all the excellent qualities with which the mind of this blessed man was endued, proceeded from that Holy Ghost of whose influences his mind was full. The prayer therefore shows most powerfully the matchless benevolence of God. Even these most unprincipled, most impious, and most brutal of all murderers, were not out of the reach of His mercy! His Spirit influenced the heart of this martyr to pray for his destroyers; and could such prayers fail? o: Saul of Tarsus, in all probability was the first fruits of them. St. Augustine has properly remarked, Si Stephanus non orasset, ecclesia Paulum non haberet. If Stephen had not prayed, the Church of Christ could not have numbered among her saints the apostle of the Gentiles. Let this example teach us at once the spirit that becomes a disciple of Christ, the efficacy of prayer, and the unbounded philanthropy of God.

GILL, "And he kneeled down,.... It seems as if he stood before while they were stoning him, and while he was commending his soul to Christ, but now he kneeled down; prayer may be performed either kneeling or standing:

and cried with a loud voice; not only to show that he was in good spirits, and not afraid to die, but chiefly to express his vehement and affectionate desire to have the following petition granted:

Lord, lay not this sin to their charge: do not impute it to them, or place it to their account; let it not rise and stand in judgment against them, or they be condemned for it; grant them forgiveness for it, and for every other sin: there is a great deal of likeness between Christ and this first martyr of his at their deaths; Christ committed his Spirit into the hands of his Father, and Stephen commits his into the hands of Christ; both prayed for forgiveness for their enemies; and both cried with a loud voice before they expired; for so it follows here,

and when he had said this, he fell asleep; or died; for death, especially the death of the saints, or dying in Jesus, is expressed by sleep. This way of speaking is common with the Jews, who sayF20, that Rabbi such an one דמיך, "slept"; i.e. "died"; and this they say is a pure and honourable way of speaking with respect to an holy body, whose death is no other than as it were a sleep: and elsewhereF21 it is said, that one saw such an one מנמנם, "sleeping"; the gloss upon it is, גוסס, "expiring": See Gill on John 11:11, See Gill on 1 Thessalonians 4:13. The Vulgate Latin version adds, "in the Lord."

HERY, "(2.) Here is a prayer for his persecutors, Acts 7:60.

[1.] The circumstances of this prayer are observable for it seems to have been offered up with something more of solemnity than the former. First, He knelt down, which was an expression of his humility in prayer. Secondly, He cried with a loud voice, which was an expression of his importunity. But why should he thus show more humility and importunity in this request than in the former? Why, none could doubt of his being in good earnest in his prayers for himself, and therefore there he needed not to use such outward expressions of it but in his prayer for his enemies, because that is so much against the grain of corrupt nature, it was requisite he should give proofs of his being in earnest.

[2.] The prayer itself: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Herein he followed the example of his dying Master, who prayed thus for his persecutors, Father, forgive them and set an example to all following sufferers in the cause of Christ thus to pray for those that persecute them. Prayer may preach. This did so to those who stoned Stephen, and he knelt down that they might take notice he was going to pray, and cried with a loud voice that they might take notice of what he said, and might learn, First, That what they did was a sin, a great sin, which, if divine mercy and grace did not prevent, would be laid to their charge, to their everlasting confusion. Secondly, That, notwithstanding their malice and fury against him, he was in charity with them, and was so far from desiring that God would avenge his death upon them that it was his hearty prayer to God that it might not in any degree be laid to their charge. A sad reckoning there would be for it. If they did not repent, it would certainly be laid to their charge but he, for his part, did not desire the woeful day. Let them take notice of this, and, when their thoughts were cool, surely they would not easily forgive themselves for putting him to death who could so easily forgive them. The blood-thirsty hate the upright, but the just seek his soul, Proverbs 29:10. Thirdly, That, though the sin was very heinous, yet they must not despair of the pardon of it upon their repentance. If they would lay it to their hearts, God would not lay it to their charge. "Do you think," saith St. Austin, "that Paul heard Stephen pray this prayer? It is likely he did and ridiculed it then (audivit subsannans, sed irrisit--he heard with scorn), but afterwards he had the benefit of it, and fared the better for it."

3. His expiring with this: When he had said this, he fell asleep or, as he was saying this, the blow came that was mortal. ote, Death is but a sleep to good people not the sleep of the soul (Stephen had given that up into Christ's hand), but the sleep of the body it is its rest from all its griefs and toils it is perfect ease from toil and pain. Stephen died as much in a hurry as ever any man did, and yet, when he died, he fell asleep. He applied himself to his dying work with as much composure of mind as if he had been going to sleep it was but closing his eyes, and dying. Observe, He fell asleep when he was praying for his persecutors it is expressed as if he thought he could not die in peace till he had done this. It contributes very much to our dying comfortably to die in charity with all men we are then found of Christ in peace let not the sun of life go down upon our wrath. He fell asleep the vulgar Latin adds, in the Lord, in the embraces of his love. If he thus sleep, he shall do well he shall awake

again in the morning of the resurrection.

JAMISO,"cried with a loud voice — with something of the gathered energy of his dying Lord (see on John 19:16-30).

Lord — that is, JESUS, beyond doubt, whom he had just before addressed as Lord.

lay not this sin to their charge — Comparing this with nearly the same prayer of his dying Lord, it will be seen how very richly this martyr of Jesus had drunk into his Master‘s spirit, in its divinest form.

he fell asleep — never said of the death of Christ. (See on 1 Thessalonians 4:14). How bright the record of this first martyrdom for Christ, amidst all the darkness of its perpetrators; and how many have been cheered by it to like faithfulness even unto death!

CALVI, "60.Kneeling down, he cried. This is the other part of his prayer, wherein he joineth the love of men with faith in Christ; and surely if we desire to be gathered to Christ for our salvation, we must put on this affection. Whereas Stephen prayeth for his enemies, and those most deadly, and even in the very instant when their cruelty might provoke him unto desire of revenge, he declareth sufficiently what affection he beareth toward all other men.

And we know that we are all commanded (491) to do the same which Stephen did; (492) but because there is nothing more hard than so to forgive injuries, that we will wish well to those who would have us undone, (Matthew 5:43;) therefore we must always set Stephen before our eyes for an example. He crieth indeed with a loud voice, but he maketh show of nothing before men which was not spoken sincerely and from the heart, as God himself doth witness. Yet he crieth aloud, that he may omit nothing which might serve to assuage the cruelty of the enemies. The fruit appeared not forthwith, yet undoubtedly he prayed not in vain; and Paul is unto us a sufficient testimony (493) that this sin was not laid to all their charges. I will not say as Augustine, that unless Stephen had prayed the Church should not have had Paul; for this is somewhat hard; only I say this, that whereas God pardoned Paul, it appeareth thereby that Stephen’s prayer was not in vain. Here ariseth a question, how Stephen prayeth for those which he said of late did resist the Holy Ghost; but this seemeth to be the sin against the Spirit which shall never be forgiven? We may easily answer, that that is pronounced generally of all which belongeth to many everywhere; therefore, he called not the body of the people rebellious in such sort that he exempted none. Again, I have declared before what manner of resisting he condemned in that place; for it followeth not by and by, that they sin against the Holy Ghost who resist him for a time. When he prayeth that God will not lay the sin to their charge, his meaning is, that the guiltiness may not remain in them.

And when he had said thus, he fell on sleep. This was added, that we may know that these words were uttered even when he was ready to yield up the ghost, which is a token of wonderful constancy; also this word sleep noteth a meek kind of death.

ow, because he made this prayer when he was at the point of death, he was not moved with any hope of obtaining pardon, to be so careful to appease his enemies, but only that they might repent. When this word sleep is taken in the Scripture for to die, it must be referred unto the body, lest any man imagine foolishly with unlearned men, that the souls do also sleep.

COFFMA, "The similarity of the Greek ew Testament in this verse and Acts 7:58 where it is related that the garments were placed in Saul's charge has led to the conclusion that Stephen had Saul in mind in this prayer.

He kneeled down ... This Stephen did that he might die in an attitude of prayer and as a servant of the beloved Master.

Lay not this sin ... As Clarke commented:

Christ gave what some have supposed to be an impossible command: "Love your enemies; pray for them that despitefully use, and persecute you." But Stephen shows here in his own person how practicable the grace of his Master had made this sublime precept.[22]He fell asleep ... Taking their cue from what Jesus had said regarding the sleep of Lazarus and that of the daughter of Jairus, the Christians quickly adopted this euphemism for death. It is not so much the superficial resemblances between ordinary sleep and the sleep of death, but the pledge of the resurrection which illuminates this beloved metaphor. Upon the gravestones of two millennia, the believing community of the saints in Christ have engraved upon the tombs of their beloved dead the sacred words, "Asleep in Jesus!"

EDOTE:

[22] Ibid.

PETT, "‘And he knelt down, and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.’

And then as the stones rained down on him he knelt, and crying with a loud voice, pleaded, “Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge.” And with that he ‘fell asleep’. His body ceased to have life but the Lord had received his spirit and he slept with Jesus. He was at peace.

We can again hardly doubt that he had in mind again the words of Jesus on the cross. But this time, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). In Stephen’s case they did know what they were doing. His forgiveness was because he knew that they were spiritually blind.

‘He fell asleep.’ Death was described as a sleep because a dead man looked as though he slept. It was a euphemism because men feared to think of death in all its

nakedness. But in Christian belief, and in accordance with the example and teaching of Christ (John 11:11), it came to signify that Christians did not finally die, because they would live on and would one day rise again. The thought of sleep was not of unconsciousness, but of bliss. Paul looked forward to being ‘with the Lord’. It was a picture of repose, of joy and peace.

ELLICOTT, "(60) Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.—Here again we cannot help finding proof, not only that the mind of Stephen was after the mind of Christ, but that the narrative of the Crucifixion, as recorded by St. Luke, was, in some measure, known to him. The resemblance to the prayer of Christ, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), could hardly have been accidental. We may well think of the prayer as having for its chief object him who was the foremost of the accusers. The old words of Augustine (Serm. 314-318), that we owe the conversion of Saul to the prayers of Stephen, may be accepted as the expression of a great spiritual fact. This prayer, like that which preceded it, was addressed, it will be noted, to the Lord Jesus.

He fell asleep.—The thought and the phrase were not altogether new. (Comp. John 11:11, and ote.) Even a heathen poet had said of one who died the death of the righteous—

“When good men die, it is not death, but sleep.”

—Callimachus, Epig. 10.

OTES, Stephen-he followed his LordIn temptationIn trial In triumph.

Trying temptationTragic trialTrustful triumph.

As Samson slew more in death than in life, so Stephen converted more in death than in life.

The fact that Stephen could see Christ indicates that heaven is not up in the sense of far away in space but is in another dimension.

“Whose eagle eyeCould pierce beyond the grave;Who saw his master in the sky,And called on him to save.”

Asleep in Jesus! Blessed sleep,From which none ever wakes to weep.

A calm and undisturbed repose,Unbroken by the last of foes.

Asleep in Jesus! Oh, for meMay such a blissful refuge be;Securely shall my ashes lie,And wait the summons from on high.

Stephen had victory Over himselfOver hateOver hell.

COKE, "Acts 7:60. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.— The original is emphatical; literally, Weigh not out to them this sin, that is, "The punishment due to it;" alluding to passages of Scripture where God is represented as weighing men's characters and actions in the dispensations of his justice and providence. Compare 1 Samuel 2:3. Job 31:6. Proverbs 16:2. Isaiah 26:7. Daniel 5:27. This prayer of St. Stephen was heard and remarkably answered in theconversion of Saul, of whose history we shall shortly hear more.

Inferences.—Do any call us to account concerning our faith and hope in Christ? Let the law and the testimony be our defence; they all along spake of him, and by them we are assured that he is in himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who appeared to Moses in the flaming bush without consuming it, was with him in all his dangers, and wrought all the wonders of Israel's deliverances by his hands; and who was typified by that celebrated prophet, and by Joshua their leader into the land of Canaan, and by the tabernacle and temple, and is now exalted, in our nature, to the highest dignity of his office in heaven, and is worthy of all faith, religious worship and adoration.—How true and faithful is God to his promises; though we, alas! are dull of understanding, and do not observe his way and time for fulfilling them! But how sure are his performances of all his promises, in due season, to them that trust in him; and how graciously does he accept them and their services, according to his own institution, of what nation, or in what place soever they are! And, O how much better is it to have God dwelling in our hearts by faith, and in our religious assemblies by his Spirit, as his temple upon earth, till we get to the throne of his glory in heaven, than to imagine that his special presence is confined to any material temple! But, ah! how prone are hypocritical professors to be more fond of rites and ceremonies, than of his law and gospel! How sadly have many revolted from him, resisted his Spirit, persecuted his servants, and rejected him and his salvation, to their own dreadful perdition! But the Lord Jesus will stand by the true confessors of his name at the worst of times, will fill them with the Holy Ghost, and give them seasonable manifestations of his glory; and when his enemies cast them out, and cruelly put them to death, he stands ready to support and comfort them, to take

them into the arms of his love, and to receive them into heaven, that they may live with him for ever. And O! with what holy liberty, zeal, and courage, will they speak for him, and in his strength suffer even to the worst of martyrdoms for his sake, when he calls them to it! With what humble confidence and assuring satisfaction may they invoke his name, and commit their departing souls to him; and with what peace and pleasure may they die, with a forgiving spirit towards their enemies, and with a joyful assurance of their own souls' going immediately to Jesus, and of their bodies sleeping in him, till they shall awake to everlasting life, and appear with him in glory!

But, O Saul! couldst thou have believed, if one had told thee, while thou was urging on the cruel multitude, while thou wast glorying over the venerable corpse of pious Stephen,—couldst thou have believed that the time would come, when thou thyself shouldst be twice stoned in the same cause for which he died?—That thou shouldst triumph in having committed thy soul likewise to that Jesus, whom thou wast now blaspheming! In this instance his dying prayer was illustriously answered for thee! In this instance, the wolf lies down with the lamb, and the leopard with the kid, as Isaiah has foretold. And it is most delightful to think that the martyr Stephen, and Saul the barbarous persecutor, (afterwards his brother—both in faith and in martyrdom,) are now joined in bonds of everlasting friendship, and dwell together in the happy company of those who have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb, Revelation 7:14. May we at length be joined with them, and, in the mean time, let us glorify God in both!

REFLECTIOS.—1st, Stephen, that noble confessor, is before his judges assembled in full council, with the high-priest at their head, all his known, avowed, and inveterate enemies: yet, in answer to the high priest's demand, Are these things so? he boldly undertakes his defence. The scriptures are the armoury whence he draws the weapons of his warfare, and we find him a complete master of his subject. Being a Hellenist Jew, he quotes the septuagint, as the version commonly in use in their synagogues, though containing some variations from the original Hebrew. He begins,

1. With a respectful and affectionate address, entreating their unprejudiced attention; Men, brethren, and fathers hearken.

2. He lays before them a concise view of the patriarchal history, in order that they might remember, that God had a visible church and people in the world before the law was given, and still would have one when all the ceremonial institutions were abolished.

[1.] He opens with the call of Abraham, to whom the God of glory appeared, in some visible display of his presence, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Char-ran, in an idolatrous land, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee: accordingly he immediately left his country, and removed to Charran, and after his father's death receiving a second call, he came into the land of Canaan, and abode there where

they now dwelt.

Hence it appeared, that Abraham was in God's favour before he was circumcised, and that God's Shechinah had visited Ur of the Chaldees, before it appeared in Canaan; and therefore they might see, that neither the dispensation of the law, nor the land of Israel, were needful for the acceptable worship of God. ote; (1.) Though we may not see clearly whither God is leading us, yet, when we have his call, we may confidently go forward. (2.) They who are travelling to the heavenly Canaan, cheerfully turn their backs on earth with all its allurements.

[2.] Though God had promised Abraham the land of Canaan for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child, yet he gave him not a foot of land for a present inheritance: nor for four hundred years afterwards, reckoning from the birth of Isaac, did any of his posterity enjoy the promised inheritance, but lived unsettled, and afflicted, under the tyranny of strangers, till, at the expiration of the time appointed, God judged their Egyptian oppressors, and brought them at last to serve him in this place. And this Stephen suggests, in order to lower their pride on their original; and, from the length of time which elapsed between the promise and the fulfilment of it, as well as from the hardships which their fathers endured in the intermediate space, to shew them that the principal object to which the Lord intended to lead them, was the heavenly Canaan, of which this was but the figure; and therefore it could be no blasphemy to say, that Jesus could destroy this country, when he promised to bring his faithful servants to the heavenly Canaan, and the Jerusalem which is above. ote; (1.) Though God's promises may be long in their fulfilment, they are sure to the faithful. (2.) The children of God may be, and very frequently are, called to endure the severest afflictions here. (3.) He will finally avenge them on their oppressors.

[3.] Having called Abraham to be his servant, God gave him the covenant of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of that faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised; and this rite he transmitted to his posterity, circumcising his son Isaac on the eighth day, according to the divine command. And Isaac begat Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, in whom the family of Abraham began to enlarge; yet even then did the same spirit of envy break forth against Joseph, as they who boasted themselves descendants from these patriarchs afterwards shewed to Jesus, of whom Joseph was an eminent type, both in his sufferings and exaltation. The patriarchs, moved with envy, sold him into Egypt: but God was with him, and delivered him out of all his afflictions; and endued him with such wisdom as recommended him to Pharaoh's favour, who constituted him governor over Egypt and all his house. And thus had God exalted his Son Jesus, whom they had brought to the lowest state of ignominy and abasement, to a throne of glory. A dearth, which Joseph had foretold, drove the brethren of Joseph shortly after from Canaan to Egypt, where, through his care, provision had been laid up against the years of famine. There at the second interview, to the astonishment of his brethren, Joseph made himself known to them; and Pharaoh being acquainted with his kindred, Joseph, at his desire, invites his father and all his family into Egypt, consisting of seventy-five persons. There Jacob, with the patriarchs, died, and, in the faith of the

fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham, the bones of the patriarchs were carried out of Egypt, and laid in the sepulchre that Jacob the grandson of Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (See the Annotations.) Thus they might observe, that the land on which they set so high a value, was afflicted with famine; that the patriarchs, of whom they boasted, all died in a strange country, and never got possession of Palestine; and yet the faithful among them were nevertheless accepted of God, and their faith was carried out to the heavenly inheritance, which Jesus has brought to light, and has obtained for all that perseveringly believe in him.

2nd, Stephen proceeds with the history of the Jewish people.

1. When the time of the promise drew nigh, they multiplied exceedingly. Then a new king arose, which knew not Joseph, nor remembered what a Saviour he had been to the land; but, jealous of the increase of the Israelites, with hellish craft he sought to extirpate them by a bloody edict to kill all the male children which should be born; while by the most servile and incessant toils and labour he sought to harass to death their fathers. And thus were they acting against the disciples of Jesus and his infant church; but their subtilty and malice would be equally abortive; the followers of Jesus but increased and multiplied the more.

2. In this state of distress Moses was born, designed of God for their great deliverer; for when God's people are at the last extremity, he is ready gloriously to appear on their behalf. The child was exceedingly fair; something peculiarly beautiful appeared in his infant countenance. After being concealed three months, he was at last exposed; and so Providence ordered it, that Pharaoh's daughter, coming down to the spot to bathe, found the babe, and was so struck with his beauty and tears, that she took and brought him up as her own son, giving him the most accomplished education; so that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds; remarkably judicious in his counsels, and eminent for his courage.

Stephen shewed hereby, that, far from dishonouring Moses, he regarded him with the greatest admiration, and spoke of him with the highest encomiums. He was also an eminent figure of Christ, exposed to like danger in his infancy, and raised up of God to be an infinitely greater Saviour to his faithful people.

3. And when he was full forty years old, being arrived at the prime of life, and almost at the height of grandeur and affluence, moved by a divine impulse, he resolved to leave the court of Pharaoh, and visit his afflicted brethren. And seeing one of them most unjustly abused and beaten, he interposed in his behalf, and slew the Egyptian, as a specimen of that authority with which he was invested, as their appointed deliverer; supposing by this action they would understand what God intended to do for them by his means; but they understood not. The next day he shewed himself again unto them as they strove, and, as a peace-maker, would fain have reconciled the two Hebrews who quarrelled with each other, suggesting their near relation, and how unbecoming it was in them to abuse and fight with one

another. But he who was the aggressor, impatient of the rebuke (as those usually are, who are in the wrong), insultingly rejects his interposition, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? as if he assumed an authority to which he had no title; and upbraids him with what he had done the day before; Wilt thou kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday? Perceiving hereby the danger in which he was, and the ingratitude and baseness of his brethren, Moses fled, lest, the fact being published, he should be arrested as a murderer; and taking up his abode in the land of Midian, he spent another forty years there, where he begat two sons.

ow Stephen insinuates that it was no new thing with them to reject and ill use their divinely-appointed deliverers. As their fathers perversely shut their eyes against the pretensions of Moses, so had they refused Jesus the Prince of glory, who came to deliver them from a worse than Egyptian bondage, even from the tyranny of sin and Satan, and from the power of death and hell.

3rdly, Stephen proceeds in his account of Moses, and, far from speaking ought that could be construed into blasphemy against him, none could ever make more honourable mention of this great lawgiver.

1. At the expiration of forty years, the great Angel of the covenant, who in the fulness of time was to come into the world as God incarnate, in the person of the man Christ Jesus, appeared to him in a bush, which seemed all on fire, yet remained unconsumed. Struck with astonishment at this strange sight, when Moses approached to take a nearer view, the voice of God was heard from the midst of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, remembering his covenant, and now about to fulfil his promises to their seed, after so long a time. The doctrine then of a resurrection, at which the Sadducees were so offended, has Moses for its voucher: and God had not limited his presence to the temple, but had here displayed his glory in a wilderness; and that very covenant of promise made unto the fathers, which God spake of to Moses, Stephen preached, shewing its most evident and glorious accomplishment in the spiritual salvation of Jesus; so far was he from contradicting, and much more from blaspheming Moses, as they alleged.

2. Struck with sacred reverence, his eyes fixed on the earth, Moses durst not behold the glory. Then God bids him put off his shoes from his feet, as standing now on holy ground; and gives him his commission: I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. Though God suffer his believing people to be in distress, he hears their cry, and in his good time will help them. This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the Angel which appeared to him in the bush; and thus had God the Father exalted his Son Jesus, whom they had in like manner rejected, to be a Prince and Saviour.

3. Moses faithfully executed his commission, and brought them out from the house of bondage, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in

the Red-Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. So highly does he speak of Israel's deliverer; nor was it any derogation from him, that a greater than he should arise, accomplishing a more glorious redemption for them, since of such a one does Moses himself prophesy.

4. This is that Moses, the very person for whose honour they were so jealous, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; a new lawgiver, who should introduce another dispensation; or as me, as he hath raised up me, so shall there arise another, invested with divine authority and power: him shall ye hear, submitting to his word, and obedient to his voice in all things. Far therefore from dishonouring Moses, Stephen shews the accomplishment of his prophesy, and that they ought to testify their real veneration for his memory, by obeying his injunctions, and submitting to that new and spiritual dispensation which Jesus the great Prophet came to introduce.

5. otwithstanding all the services which Moses did them, and all the honour that God had conferred upon him, their fathers had treated him with the highest contempt and ingratitude. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, as their captain and leader, with the angel, that uncreated Angel of the covenant, the great Jehovah Jesus, which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers, face to face, as a man talketh to his friend; who received the lively oracles to give unto us; oracles, as being of infallible certainty; and lively, sharp, and piercing the conscience, or leading those who truly understood them, and perseveringly obeyed them, to eternal life. Yet greatly as Moses was honoured of God herein, our fathers would not obey him, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt; murmuring and mutinying against him, and sinking into the grossest idolatry, at the very time when, as their mediator, he was in the mount with God,—saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. So disrespectfully did they speak of their great deliverer. And accordingly, they made a calf in those days in imitation of the Egyptian god Apis, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Instead therefore of charging Stephen with blasphemy, they would do well to remember what their own ancestors had done.

6. For these abominations God was justly provoked. Then he turned, withdrew from them his grace and favour, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, leaving them in righteous judgment to their own inventions. In consequence of which they neglected God, and all the newly-instituted ordinances, and relapsed, after they came into Canaan, into the grossest idolatry; for which he quotes a prophet's words, whose authority they would not dispute, (Amos 5:25-27.) Have ye offered to me slain beasts, and sacrifices, by the space of forty years in the wilderness? o: they neglected his worship, and what they offered was to devils, and not to God, (Deuteronomy 32:17.) so that they themselves disused for forty years those very customs which Moses had delivered to them. And, worse still, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, the image of this idol inclosed in a shrine; and the star of your

god Remphan, figures which ye made, to worship them, in express contradiction to the commands of God: and for this he threatens them with condign punishment; I will carry you away beyond Babylon, (see 2 Kings 17:5-8.)

ow if God dealt thus severely with them for despising Moses' law, of how much sorer punishment, than even their ancestors received, would they be counted worthy, for rejecting the dispensation of grace which Jesus, so far greater than Moses, came from God to reveal to them!

4thly, The accusation lodged against Stephen was for speaking against the temple, as if he was guilty of blasphemy thereby; whereas he shews, that their fathers worshipped God acceptably for ages before any temple was built.

1. It was not till they came into the wilderness, that the tabernacle of witness was reared, according to the model which God shewed to Moses in the mount. God accepted his faithful worshippers before there was any tabernacle; and they might again serve him as acceptably, if the holy place, the temple, was destroyed: and the very care shewn in the making of this tent according to the divine model, intimated, that it was a shadow of good things to come, being typical of the incarnation of the Son of God, and of his spiritual and gracious presence in his church.

2. This tabernacle Joshua brought into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before him; and if it was set up in that polluted land of Canaan, why might not God now erect his spiritual tabernacle among the nations of the heathen?

3. Till David's time, God was pleased to dwell in this mean and moveable tent, above four hundred years; and when David was desirous to build a temple for the Lord, he forbade him, reserving that honor for Solomon, who built him an house. It therefore appeared evident, that God was not solicitous to have a temple for his abode, as if that was necessary for their acceptable worship; and also, that if Solomon might change the tabernacle for a temple, God might no doubt, if he pleased, destroy that, and make his abode in the spiritual temple, the church of the faithful.

4. Though God ordered the erection of the tabernacle, and the building of the temple, it could not be conceived that his immensity could be circumscribed by these narrow bounds, when as the prophet (Isaiah 66:1-2.) had observed, Heaven is his throne, and earth his footstool. o house made with hands can then be comparable to that glorious temple the universe, which himself hath reared: nor can he need a place to repose himself, when all things and creatures whatever are the work of his hands. Therefore it was no disparagement to the temple, to affirm, that Jesus should destroy this temple, and set up another, into which all nations should flow together, and their worship be acceptable to him.

5thly, Perhaps Stephen was proceeding to shew that the temple and its service must come to an end; but perceiving the rage that fired the bosoms of his enemies sparkling in their eyes, and expecting soon to be interrupted, he closes with a word of piercing application.

1. He charges them with their obstinacy and stubbornness like unto their fathers. Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears; in profession God's servants, but hardened in pride and prejudice against the clearest intimations of his will; ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; rejecting the evidence of his miracles, wilfully blind to the clearest prophesies, and fighting against the convictions of your own consciences. As your fathers did, so do ye; refusing to hearken unto us the inspired servants of Jesus, as they turned a deaf ear to the warnings of the prophets: and just is it in God to devote those to ruin, who will not hearken to his admonitions, but obstinately harden their hearts.

2. They were persecutors and murderers, like their fathers. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? more or less reviling or opposing them? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One, the divine Messiah, Jesus, the holy one of God, sent to bring in an everlasting righteousness, through his infinite merit and intercession; of whom ye, treading closely in your ancestors' steps, and exceeding them in wickedness, have been now the betrayers and murderers.

3. They had rejected God's word, as their fathers before them, who have received the law, delivered in the most august manner, by the disposition of angels, whose ministry God employed on mount Sinai, when in shining ranks they graced that solemnity, as attendants on the king of glory; and have not kept it; have, like them, broken its most essential precepts, and added to all their guilt the rejection of the gospel also, notwithstanding all the glorious evidences wherewith it has been attended; and how then can you hope to escape the vengeance of an offended God?

6thly, We have the glorious and triumphant death of the first Christian martyr.

1. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, so filled were they with envy, indignation, and malice, as if sawn asunder; and they gnashed on him with their teeth, as if they would have devoured him alive. ote; Wicked men carry their hell about with them, in those diabolical tempers and raging passions, which make them their own tormentors.

2. Stephen, unterrified with their malice, and being full of the Holy Ghost, receiving an abundant increase of grace and consolation suited to his present condition, looked up steadfastly into heaven; appealing to God, confidently expecting divine support, and eagerly longing after that crown of glory which now shone bright in his view, and enabled him to look down with contempt upon the malice of his enemies; and, by a miraculous manifestation, saw the glory of God, some visible emblem of the eternal majesty, such as the Shechinah, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, in his human nature as Mediator, exalted to the highest honour and dignity, appearing as the advocate of his suffering saint, to strengthen him boldly to resist unto blood, to crown him with martyrdom, and shortly to avenge him of his bloody persecutors. Transported with this beatific vision, he said, with wonder and delight, Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing

on the right hand of God. ote; (1.) In times of suffering, our eyes should be lifted up to heaven, for thence cometh our help. (2.) As our tribulations for Christ abound, he is pleased, by the most gracious manifestations of himself, to cause our consolations to abound also. (3.) A sight of Jesus, at the right-hand of God, will carry us triumphantly through death armed with all its terrors, and enable us to defy the stroke.

3. Concluding now that they had full cause for his condemnation, They cried out with a loud voice, to drown his speech, to express their detestation of what they heard, and to sharpen each other's fury; and stopped their ears, as if shocked at his blasphemy; and ran upon him with one accord; the whole multitude of the people rising in tumultuous rage; and cast him out of the city, as a wretch not fit to live, and who defiled that holy place where he stood, and stoned him, as a blasphemer (Leviticus 24:16.) and the witnesses, whose hands were first upon him (Deuteronomy 17:6-7.) laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul, a fiery zealot, who with pleasure saw the bloody execution of this holy martyr. ote; (1.) The cause of Christ is often run down with clamour, and rage supplies the place of reason. (2.) Many of the dearest saints upon earth have been counted as the off-scouring of all things, and thought unworthy of the air they breathed.

4. They stoned Stephen, calling upon God; though cast out from earth, as unworthy to live, he had a sure interest in heaven, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit; and, now ready to expire, he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, expressive of the vehemence of his desire, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, copying closely his divine Master's example; and when he had said this, he fell asleep; as these words dropped from his lips, the mortal blow reached him, and in the arms of everlasting love he sweetly rested from suffering and sorrow for ever. ote; (1.) In a dying hour, we cannot be better employed than in commending our souls into the arms of Jesus. (2.) If our immortal part be safe, it little matters what becomes of the fleshly tabernacle. (3.) Jesus is very God, the object of his people's adoration; and as it is only by faith in him that we can live comfortably, so only by an eye to him, as the resurrection and the life, can we die happily. (4.) Our bitterest persecutors must share our prayers; and the more wicked they are, the more they need them. (5.) When we come to die, it will be essential to our salvation, that we are truly in charity with all men. (6.) Death to the faithful is but a sleep: their bodies reposing awhile in that bed of dust where our Lord has lain, HIS voice shall waken them up in the resurrection morn, and they shall arise to share with him the triumphs of that eternal day, when their sun shall no more go down, nor their moon withdraw itself, but the Lord shall be their everlasting light, and their God their glory.

EBC, "THE FIRST CHRISTIA MARTYRDOM.

Acts 7:58-60; Acts 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. Stephen’s career was a type of all martyr lives, and embraces every possible development through which Christ’s 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 Stephen’s martyrdom. Let us see how this came about. One hundred and forty years later than Stephen’s 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 God’s 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. Stephen’s Day are closely united, -the commemoration of Christ’s 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. Stephen’s, St. John’s, 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 orthern 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. Stephen’s Day are both natal days. In the language of the ancient Church, with its strong realising faith, men spoke of a saint’s 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. Stephen’s 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 orator’s 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. Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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 Christ’s flock, and will not seek, as St. Stephen and the apostles did, to recommend God’s 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 God’s 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 Stephen’s 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

azareth 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. Paul’s 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 ruler’s 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 Stephen’s 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 Stephen’s 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 Leviticus 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. ay, 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 Lightfoot’s more prolonged and detailed statement that the leading ideas of Jewish practice were retained in St. Stephen’s 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.

Stephen’s 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 Christ’s 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. Stephen’s 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 Stephen’s 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 man’s 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 Stephen’s 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, Stephen’s 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 Lord’s 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 Lord’s, 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." [Acts 9:14] The Damascene Jews are amazed at the converted Saul’s

preaching of Jesus Christ, saying, "Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them which called on this name?" [Acts 9:21] While again Romans 10:12 and 1 Corinthians 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. Paul’s teaching at a much later period than St. Stephen’s 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 Pliny’s 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. Paul’s 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 Jesus 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 ame, 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 Christ’s 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. Paul’s 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 icodemus 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: ay, 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 Stephen’s death are twofold. Stephen’s 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 Stephen’s martyrdom was to render the Church’s 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 Church’s 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 Church’s 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."

GREAT TEXTS OF THE BIBLE, "FAITHFUL UTO DEATH.

They stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. Acts vii. 59, 60.

WHE we read St. Luke s Gospel and the Book of Acts we are

constantly finding history presented in pictures which live in the imagination and which have been reproduced on the canvas of our great artists. This story of the martyrdom of St. Stephen is one of them. It has been regarded all through the Christian ages as a theme of never-failing and most touching interest. But it is more than this. It has been represented by Christian Art in devotional pictures more frequently perhaps than any subject not immediately connected with our blessed Lord. The few words in which St. Luke has recorded it are full of suggestiveness. In the vision, for instance, which was vouchsafed to nerve Stephen for his doom, we are told that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God ; whereas elsewhere in Scripture our Lord is described as sitting. This, however, is not the posture in which we should wish to find one to whom we went for help in time of trouble and distress. It was doubtless for this reason that when the veil was drawn, Jesus was manifested to His faithful servant as standing, as One who has risen from His seat and is stretching out a helping hand to him in the crisis of his need. The Church of England has been careful to preserve this beautiful idea in one of her most beautiful Collects : " Grant, Lord, that in all our Bufferings here upon earth for the testimony of Thy truth, we may steadfastly look up to heaven, and by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed; and, being filled with the Holy Ghost, may learn to love and bless our persecutors, by the example of Thy first martyr, Saint Stephen, who prayed for his murderers to

Thee, blessed Jesus, who standest at the right hand of God

is

86 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

to succour all those that suffer for Thee, our only Mediator and Advocate."

TJ One of the pictures which Tintoret conceived most rapidly and painted with passionate speed is his picture of the martyrdom of St. Stephen. It is in the great Church of St. George at Venice. Entirely ideal, it shares in the weakness which sometimes belonged to this artist s work when he was painting what was impossible. ot one of the stones which lie in hundreds round the kneeling figure of the martyr has touched him; he is absolutely unhurt. It would have suited Tintoret s character far more to have filled the air with a rain of stones, and to have sent the saint to the ground with a huge mass crashing on his shoulder.

And he could have done this without erring against our sense of beauty if he had chosen. But he was ordered otherwise; and we have now from his hand the spiritual idea of martyrdom, not the actual reality.

The picture somewhat fails, because he wished to do it otherwise ; but the kneeling figure, with clasped hands and face upturned in ecstasy its absolute forgetfulness of the wild cries and the violence of death, its rapturous consciousness of the glory which from the throne of God above strikes upon the face is a concentration of all the thoughts which in many ages have collected around the idea of the sacrifice of life for the love of truth conceived of as at one with the love of Christ.

But this is not all that was represented on the canvas of this thoughtful and imaginative painter. Tintoret, who knew his Bible well, knew that Stephen had won his martyrdom by bold speaking, and that though he prayed for those who slew him, he had not been patient with their blindness to good. So there is in the whole picture a sense of triumph the triumph and ad vance of Christianity. " Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." That is the note. The glorious group above in Heaven is dominant. We see the future joy of the martyr in the triumph flashing from the face of Stephen, and the circle of the witnesses seated around in light seem to form an aureole round the dying figure. ot a stone touches the martyr. othing is fairer, nothing more victorious than his face. 1

This is the only narrative in the ew Testament of a Christian martyrdom or death. As a rule, Scripture is supremely indifferent as to what becomes of the people with whom it is for a time con cerned. So long as the man is the organ of the Divine Spirit ho

1 Siopfbrd Brooke.

ACTS vii. 59, 60 87

is somewhat ; as soon as the Spirit ceases to speak through him he drops into insignificance. So this same Acts of the Apostles kills off James the brother of John in a parenthesis ; and his is the only other martyrdom that it concerns itself even so much as to mention. Why, then, this exceptional detail about the martyrdom of Stephen ? For two reasons : because it is the first of a series, and the Acts of the Apostles always dilates upon the

first of each set of things which it describes, and condenses the others. But more especially because, if we come to look at the story, it is not so much an account of Stephen s death as of Christ s power in Stephen s death. And the theme of this book is not the acts of the Apostles, but the acts of the risen Lord in and for His Church.

STEPHE S LIFE.

i. The Deacon.

1. Stephen was originally a Hellenistic Jew. The Hellenistic Jews were made up, partly of men of purely Gentile parentage who were proselytes to the Mosaic Law, and partly of Jews, who, by long settlement in foreign lands, had adopted the language and manners of Greek civilization. To say that a man was a Hellenist proved nothing as to his descent ; but it showed that he accepted the religion of Israel, while yet he used Greek speech and followed Greek customs. Stephen s name, although Greek, does not exclude the possibility of his having been a Jew by birth ; and he is said to have had a Syriac name of the same meaning.

2. Of his conversion to the Faith of Christ we know nothing ; he is first mentioned when he was chosen one of the seven Deacons. The Church of Jerusalem in the earliest Apostolic age had a common fund, into which its members at their conversion threw their personal property, and out of which they were assisted according to their needs. The administration of this fund must have come to be a serious and complicated business within a few months from its establishment. And as the higher ministries of the Church were ordained, not with a view to carrying on a work of this kind, but for the conversion and sanctificatiou

88 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

of souls, it was natural that, with the demands upon their time which the Apostles had to meet, the finance and resources of the Church should occasionally fall into confusion. So it was that, before many months had passed, " there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews " that is, of the Hellenistic against the Jewish converts "because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Probably these widows or their friends may have been somewhat exacting. But the Apostles felt that

their time ought not to be spent in managing a bank. The Twelve, who were all in Jerusalem still, assembled the whole-body of the faithful, and desired them to elect seven men "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," to be entrusted, as Deacons, with the administration of the funds of the Church. Seven persons were chosen ; and at their head Stephen, described as " a man full of the Holy Ghost and of faith." These seven were ordained by laying on of the Apostles hands ; and the result of this arrangement was that " the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly ; and a great company of the (Jewish) priests were obedient unto the faith."

3. Of St. Stephen s exertions in the organization and direction of the public charity we hear nothing; although we may be sure that this was not neglected. We are told, however, that he was "full of faith and power," and that he "did great wonders and miracles among the people." o details are given, but his miracles must not be forgotten in our estimate of the causes of his success. His chief scene of labour seems to have been in the synagogue, or group of synagogues, " of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia." The Libertines were Jews who had been taken prisoners, reduced to slavery, then enfranchised by the Eoman general Pompey. Many of them had recently been banished from Kome, and would naturally have had a synagogue to themselves in Jerusalem. At least one synagogue would have belonged to African Jews from Cyrene and Alexandria; and two or three others to the Jews of Cilicia and Asia Minor. These were a very numerous class, and among them the future Apostle of the Gentiles was at this date still reckoned an enthusiastic Pharisee. It was among these Jews from abroad that Stephen opened what

ACTS vn. 59, 60 89

we should call a mission; he had more points of contact with these men of Greek speech and habits than had the Twelve. He engaged in a series of public disputations ; and although he was almost unbefriended, and represented a very unpopular cause, his opponents " were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake."

4. But the victory which his opponents could not hope to win by argument, they hoped they might win by denunciation and clamour. They persuaded some false witnesses to swear that in their hearing Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against

Moses and against God. They combined against him the jealousy of the upper classes and the prejudices of the lower ; and they brought him, on trial for blasphemy, before the highest Jewish court the Sanhedrin.

ii. Before the Sanhedrin.

1. " And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him. saw his face as it had been the face of an angel" (vi. 15). There is one question which we all want to have answered, and it is this : How came Stephen to be thus self-possessed before the frowning Sanhedrin fearless before an 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, and try to realize each rapidly succeeding danger, our hearts fail within us, and we feel that no physical courage, no hardihood of mere natural bravery, could sustain us here. There must have come some supernatural change upon him, to have induced at once this undaunted fortitude arid this superhuman tenderness of love. Was it a miraculous bestowment, limited in its conferment to the first ages, and to some specially selected and specially missioned men ? or is it within the reach and enjoyment of believers in Jesus now? These are questions which are interesting to us, as we dwell upon the developments of holy character presented in the life of Stephen.

2. How are we to account for this boldness ? The secret of all the heroism and of all the loveliness is in the delineation of the man. "He was a man full of faith and of the Holy Grhosf"

90 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

He did not leap into this perfect balance of character in a moment springing at once full-armed, as Minerva is fabled to have sprung from the brain of Jupiter. There was no mystic charm by which the graces clustered round him; he had no mystery of soul-growth no patented elixir of immortal ripening which was denied to others less favoured. He had faith ; it was the gift of God to him, just as it is the gift of God to us. He had the indwelling of the Holy Ghost ; which has been purchased for us in like manner by the blood-shedding of our Surety. The only difference between ourselves and him is that he claimed the blessings with a holier boldness, and lived habitually in the nearer communion with God. There is no bar to our own

entrance into this fulness of privilege; the treasury is not exhausted; the Benefactor is not less willing to bestow. His ear listens to any prayer for the increase of faith. He waits to shed forth the richer baptisms of the Holy Ghost upon all those who ask Him for the boon.

3. It is not then in physical endowment that we are to find the source of this moral courage. Some of the men who could lead the van of armies in the field who could fix the scaling-ladder against the parapet and be the first to scale the wall who could climb the rugged slope that was swept by the bristling cannon have displayed the most utter cowardice when a moral duty has been difficult, when some untoward disaster has surprised them, or when they have had to maintain the right against the laugh of the scorner. Sometimes, indeed, those who have been physically timid, and who have shuddered sensitively at the first imagined danger, have been uplifted into the bravery of confessorship when the agonizing trial came.

TI The Sister knew that the whole place was given over to evil purposes. She knew that no help would be given from inside. In case of violence it would be necessary for her to descend to the streets. She was not afraid, but she was conscious of apprehension and a vague alarm. However many policemen may walk the streets outside, it is no easy matter for a woman to face one of these pandars in the seclusion of his own establish ment. But Sister Mildred is a saint, and there is no courage like the courage of the saint. 1

1 Harold Begbie, In tJu Hand of the Potter, 188.

ACTS vii. 59, 60 91

^[ It is related that in the Duke of Wellington s campaigns two officers were once despatched upon a service of considerable danger. As they were riding together, the one observed the other to be greatly agitated, with blanched cheek and quivering lip, and limbs shaken as with a paralysis of mortal fear. Reining his steed upon its haunches, he haughtily addressed him, " Why, you are afraid." " I am," was the reply ; " and if you were half as much afraid as I am, you would relinquish the duty altogether." Without wasting another word upon his ignoble companion, the officer galloped back to headquarters, and complained bitterly that he had been ordered to march in the companionship of a coward. " Off, sir, to your duty," was the commander s sharp

reply, "or the coward will have done the business before you get there." 1

II

STEPHE S PRAYERS,

1. The two dying prayers of Stephen carry us back in thought to the prayers of our Lord at His crucifixion.

(1) " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" We are told in the sacred narrative that St. Stephen " kneeled down " while they were in the act of stoning him. The picture fills us with amazement. It is so unlike what we should have expected, that some have attempted to persuade us that this was not a voluntary or deliberate act of the martyr. We are not, it is said, to under stand that it expresses the purpose of one who was resolved, despite all the violence to which he was subjected, to spend his last moments in a posture of calm resignation and prayer ; that would have been next to impossible for any human being to do under such circumstances. He had no alternative; "another crash of stones brought him upon his knees." But the Christian conscience will not readily consent to have such a beautiful feature in the scene explained away. It shows us the dying martyr gathering up his failing strength and all the energy of his expiring life for one last, one crowning act of homage to his Lord ; and a record of it stands on the sacred page, to teach us what the greatest saints have felt about the value of external forms or bodily postures in expressing the worship that is due from the creature to the Creator. Then let us hear his prayer ;

1 W. M. Puuahou.

92 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

" Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." What an echo it is of his Master s dying words ! " Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do." ot the slightest thought of vengeance in the prayer, but an unreserved entreaty that their sins may never be remembered against them.

^f A generous prayer is never presented in vain ; the petition may be refused, but the petitioner is always, I believe, rewarded by some gracious visitation. 1

I saw an angry crowd

Gathered about a youth, that loud

Were crying: Slay him, slay,

And stoned him as he lay. I saw him overborne by death, That bowed him to the earth beneath:

Only he made his eyes

Gates to behold the skies, To his high Lord his prayer outpouring. Forgiveness for his foes imploring:

Even in that pass his face

For pity making place. 2

(2) " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" We need not dwell now upon the fact that here we have a distinct instance of prayer to Jesus Christ, a distinct recognition, in the early days of His Church, of the highest conception of His person and nature, so that a dying man turns to Him, and commits his soul into His hands. Passing this by, though not overlooking it, let us think of the resemblance, and the difference, between this entrusting of the spirit by Stephen to his Lord, and the committing of His spirit to the Father by His dying Son. Christ on the Cross speaks to God ; Stephen, on his Calvary, speaks to Jesus Christ. Christ, on the Cross, says, " I commit." Stephen says, " Keceive," or rather, " Take." The one phrase carries in it something of the notion that our Lord died not because He must, but because He would ; that He was active in His death ; that He chose to summon death to do its work upon Him ; that He " yielded up his spirit," as one of the Evangelists has it, pregnantly and significantly. But Stephen says, " Take ! " as knowing that it must be his Lord s power that should draw his spirit out of the coil of horror around

1 Robert Louis Stevenson, The Merry Men.

1 Danto, Pwg. xv. 106-114, trans, by Dr. ShadwelL

ACTS vii. 59, 60 93

him. So the one dying word has strangely compacted in it authority and submission ; and the other dying word is the word of a simple waiting servant.

2. How was Stephen strengthened for the trial ? What were the manifestations granted to him, and which sustained him through the bitterness of martyrdom ? You find these recorded in the preceding part of the chapter : " But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." We may not pretend to explain what Stephen saw in seeing the glory of God. We can only suppose that, as with St. Paul caught up to the third heaven, it was not what human speech could express , for it is very observable that when he asserts what he saw he makes no mention of " the glory of God," but confines himself to the opening of the heavens, and the manifestation of Christ at the right hand of the Father. It is not for us to speculate where the martyr is silent. We can only suppose that " the glory of God " that was shown to him was some special display of the Divine presence calculated to reassure the sufferer.

To stretch my hand and touch Him,

Though He be far away; To raise my eyes and see Him

Through darkness as through day ; To lift my voice and call Him This is to pray !

To feel a hand extended

By One who standeth near; To view the love that shineth

In eyes serene and clear ;

To know that He is calling

This is to hear !

3. The supreme thought which these prayers suggest is the great possibilities that lie in faith in Christ. We see the soul of the suffering disciple leaning on the Lord who had suffered. We see that the secret of strength in all trials lies in appealing to the love and power of the blessed Jesus. In the death-struggle St. Stephen had faith to hang upon his Lord, and his Lord bore

him through the agonies of that hour. This is what we are most

94 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

likely to think of in reading of the martyr s death. But was this the greatest proof of St. Stephen s faith ? Was his greatest trial in this world ? Did it not lie beyond this world ? The life was nearly crushed out of him. The pains of death were coming thick and fast upon him. But was death the end ? What was awaiting him after death ? He was entering on the unseen state. All was dim, unknown, untried before him. And if his spirit passed away, to whom would it go ? It must return to God, who gave it. It must go before God, meet Him, and give up its account to Him. It is such thoughts as these which add so wonderful a power and force to those words, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." I know not where I go ; all nature seems to open out into vast untried depths beneath me ; take me, hold me in Thine everlasting arms ; I am safe with Thee. I know not who may attack me, how the powers of evil may gather against me ; take me, guard me. I know not how to meet the Judgment. I know only that I have been dear to Thee in this life. Thou hast loved me, died for me, kept me. Take me now ; to Thee do I commit my cause ; " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Here is indeed a strange, calm faith in the power of our blessed Lord to keep and bless the soul in that unseen world. One who could speak thus must have felt that our Lord had conquered in that world, as in this, and emptied it of its horrors. He looked, as it were, through the mist and darkness that was gathering around him ; he pierced with the steady gaze of his mind through the veil that was drawn between him and the state on which he was entering, and there he saw his Lord waiting and ready for him. Or rather, with a surer faith, though he did not see, he felt certain that the Lord was King in that realm of the departed, and he was ready to pass into it, because he knew that the Lord had power to keep and uphold him there. It may be that we shall never know the full force of those calm words of St. Stephen till we are on the edge of that unseen world ourselves.

4. His faith was faith in Christ, in the crucified Lord Jesus Christ. Observe the words of the prayers. While they stoned Stephen St. Luke says, according to the Authorized Version, that he was "calling upon God." In the original text the Person upon whom he called is not named. The Authorized Version has

ACTS vii. 59, 60 95

supplied what seemed to be wanting, "God." intimating that it was the First Person of the Trinity. But the last Eevisers have substituted "The Lord," to indicate that it was the Second Person : and this is certainly more in accordance with the prayer that follows : " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

If The Eevisers were anticipated in their interpretation by Bishop Cosin, who, in view of perpetuating another characteristic feature of St. Stephen s martyrdom, has addressed his Collect to God the Son. With very rare exceptions (there are three others only in our Prayer Book) Liturgical Collects have always been addressed to the Father, because they form part of an office in which the Son joins with the Church in presenting to the Father the Memorial of His own Sacrifice. It seems, therefore, to introduce an incongruity to appeal at such a time to Him who is acting as Priest. It was for this reason that certain of the Early Councils directed that " when we are officiating at the altar, prayer should always be addressed to the Father." 1

5. And now, one great lesson rises out of all that has been said. If God has given us but little clear knowledge of the state of the departed, if we have been obliged to guess at what passes in that state, and are not able to speak with absolute certainty, one thing at least is clear and certain. Every hope of the soul as it passes from the body centres in our "blessed Lord. So then, if He is to be our hope and stay after death, He must be our hope and stay now. We must live in close, earnest, true communion with Him. We must live with Him as our Friend and Guide, our heart s inmost life. If we wish to feel that we can commit ourselves to Him, and lean upon Him, when our spirits shall have to venture forth at His call into the dim, uncertain, untried world beyond the grave, then we must familiarize ourselves now with His love, His power, His gifts, His might. If we hope to say with the calm, undoubting trust of St. Stephen, at that last moment, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," then we must learn such trust beforehand by commending our spirits to Him now.

Beloved, yield thy time to God, for He Will make eternity thy recompense;

Give all thy substance for His Love, and be Beatified past earth s experience. 1 H. M. Luckock.

96 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

Serve Him in bonds, until He set thee free; Serve Him in dust, until He lift thee thence;

Till death be swallowed up in victory

When the great trumpet sounds to bid thee hence.

Shall setting day win day that will not set?

Poor price wert thou to spend thyself for Christ, Had not His wealth thy poverty sufficed : Yet since He makes His garden of thy clod,

Water thy lily, rose, or violet,

And offer up thy sweetness unto God. 1

III.

STEPHE S DEATH.

1. "They stoned Stephen." Our ordinary English idea of the manner of the Jewish punishment of stoning is a very in adequate and mistaken one. It did not consist merely in a miscellaneous rabble throwing stones at the criminal, but there was a solemn and appointed method of execution which is pre served for us in detail in the Eabbinical books. And from it we gather that the modus operandi was this. The blasphemer was taken to a certain precipitous rock, the height of which was pre scribed as being equal to that of two men. The witnesses by whose testimony he had been condemned had to cast him over, and if he survived the fall it was their task to roll upon him a great stone, of which the weight is prescribed in the Talmud as being as much as two men could lift. If he lived after that, then others took part in the punishment.

2. " And when he had said this, he fell asleep." How absolute the triumph over the last enemy which these words express ! When men court slumber, they banish from their hearts all causes of anxiety, and from their dwelling all tumult of sound ;

they demand quiet as a necessity; they exclude the light and draw the curtains close ; they carefully put away from them all that will have a tendency to defeat, or to postpone the object after which they aim. But Stephen fell asleep under very different circumstances from these. Brutal oaths, and frantic yells, and curses loud and deep, were the lullaby which gang

1 Christina G. Rossetti.

ACTS vii. 59, 60 97

him to his dreamless slumbers ; and while all were agitated and tumultuous around him,

Meek as an infant to its mother s breast, So turned he, longing, for immortal rest.

The evident meaning of the words is that death came to him simply as a release from suffering as a curse from which the sting was drawn so mitigated in its bitterness, that it was as harmless and as refreshing as sleep.

K The image of sleep as a euphemism for death is no peculiar property of Christianity, but the ideas that it suggests to the Christian consciousness are the peculiar property of Christianity. Any of you that ever were in the Vatican will remember how you go down corridors with Pagan marbles on that side and Christian ones on this. Against one wall, in long rows, stand the sad memorials, each of which has the despairing ending, " Farewell, farewell, for ever farewell." But on the other side there are carved no goddesses of slumber, or mourning genii, or quenched lamps, or wailing words, but sweet emblems of a renewed life, and the ever-recurring, gracious motto : " In hope." To the non-Christian that sleep is eternal ; to the Christian that sleep is as sure of a waking as is the sleep of the body. The one affects the whole man ; the Christian sleep affects only the body and the connexion with the outer world. 1

There is none other thing expressed, But long disquiet merged in rest.

f " He fell asleep." Kepose, safety, restoration these are the ideas of comfort which are held in the expression of the text. Take them, and rejoice in the majestic hopes which they inspire. Christ has died. He, dying, drew the sting from death ; and,

properly speaking, there has been no death of a believer since that day. What says the Scripture ? " He that believeth on Jesus, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in him shall never die." What fulness of consolation to those who are mourning for others to those who are dying themselves ! With the banner of this hope in hand, the believer may return with a full heart from the grave of his best beloved, " giving thanks unto the Father which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light," and may march calmly down to the meeting of his own mortal foe. 8

1 A. Maclaren, Last Sheaves, 248. W. M. Punshon.

ACTS & ROM. 7

98 FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

Sleep, little flower, whose petals fade and fall

Over the sunless ground; Ring no more peals of perfume on the air

Sleep long and sound. Sleep sleep.

Sleep, summer wind, whose breathing grows more faint

As night draws slowly nigh; Cease thy sweet chanting in the cloistral woods

And seem to die.

Sleep -sleep.

Sleep, thou great Ocean, whose wild waters sink

Under the setting sun ; Hush the loud music of thy warring waves

Till night is done.

Sleep sleep.

Sleep, thou tired heart, whose mountain pulses droop

Within the valley cold: On pains and pleasures, fears and hopes of life,

Let go thine hold.

Sleep sleep.

Sleep, for tis only sleep, and there shall be

ew life for all, at day ; So sleep, sleep all, until the restful night

Has passed away.

Sleep sleep. 1

IV.

THE RESULT OF STEPHE S MARTYRDOM.

Such was the first martyrdom. How soon did the martyr s blood become the seed of the Church ! He had met his death for declaring the universality of God s Kingdom, that Christianity was destined to spread the blessing of salvation far beyond the Jewish race, even over the whole world ; and his dying prayer was answered by the conversion of one, who, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, helped most to preach the Gospel to "every creature which is under heaven." St. Augustine said, " If Stephen had not prayed, Paul would never have been given to the Church " (Sermo ccclxxxii., De sancto Stephana). It is true the answer was delayed. There are some, however, who believe that the effect was immediate,

1 8. J. Stone, Lullaby of Lift,

ACTS vii. 59, 60 99

and that the wild fury of the persecutor, which broke out with such violence, was only a desperate attempt to stifle the convictions which arose in his mind. Painters have caught up this idea and expressed it by the strongest contrast between Saul s face and the faces of the others who witnessed the end. It may have been so ; it may be that a foregleam of the coming dawn did touch him even then ; but whether it came at once or only in after days, no one will think of denying that there is an eternal link between the martyr s prayer and the Apostle s conversion.

^] Why was it that in the ten years after Livingstone s death, Africa made greater advancement than in the previous ten centuries ? All the world knows that it was through the vicarious suffering of one of Scotland s noblest heroes.

^ Why is Italy cleansed of the plagues that devastated her cities a hundred years ago ? Because John Howard sailed in an infected ship from Constantinople to Venice, that he might be put into a lazaretto and find out the clue to that awful mystery of the plague and stay its power. How has it come that the merchants of our western ports send ships laden with implements for the fields and conveniences for the house into the South Sea Islands? Because such men as Patteson, the pure-hearted gallant boy of Eton College, gave up every prospect in England to labour amid the Pacific savages and twice plunged into the waters of the coral reefs, amid sharks and devil-fish and stinging jellies, to escape the flight of poisoned arrows of which the slightest graze meant horrible death, and in that high service died by the clubs of the very savages whom he had often risked his life to save the memory of whose life did so smite the consciences of his murderers that they laid " the young martyr in an open boat, to float away over the bright blue waves, with his hands crossed, as if in prayer, and a palm branch on his breast." And there, in the white light, he lies now, immortal for ever. 1

A patient minister was he,

A simple saint of God, A soul that might no longer be

Bound to this earthly clod; A spirit that sought for the purer breath Of the land of life, through the gates of death,

The path all martyrs trod,

That lies through the night of a speechless shame, And leads to the light of a deathless fame.

1 . D. Hillis, The Investment of l*Jluenct t 73.

TOO FAITHFUL UTO DEATH

Stoned to his death by those for whom

His soul s last prayer was sped Unto his God, "Avert the doom That gathers o er their head " ;

And the stones that bruised him and struck him down Shone dazzling gems in his victor s crown ;

And as his spirit fled,

A light from the land where the angels dwell Lingered saintly and grand where the martyr fell.

Tis but a history in these days

The cruel and final test Of those who went life s rugged ways

For faith they had confessed; Yet the God who spake to the saints of old Lacks not to-day in His mystic fold

Doers of His behest:

There are servants of men and saints of God Who will follow, as then, where the Master trod.*

1 P. 0. Ainsworth, Poe-rns wul Sonnets, 45<