Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 6:11
Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and [against] God.
11. Then they suborned men ] Suborn = to provide, but nearly always used in a bad sense. Subornation of perjury is the legal phrase for procuring a person who will take a false oath.
which said, &c.] The charge here laid against Stephen is afterwards defined. Blasphemous words against Moses and against God Was the construction which these witnesses put upon language which had probably been uttered by Stephen in the same way as Christ had said (Joh 4:21), “The time cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then they suborned men – To suborn in law means to procure a person to take such a false oath as constitutes perjury (Webster). It has substantially this sense here. It means that they induced them to declare what was false, or to bring a false accusation against him. This was done, not by declaring a palpable and open falsehood, but by perverting his doctrines, and by stating their own inferences as what he had actually maintained – the common way in which people oppose doctrines from which they differ. The Syriac reads this place, Then they sent certain men, and instructed them that they should say, etc. This was repeating an artifice which they had before practiced so successfully in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. See Mat 26:60-61.
We have heard … – When they alleged that they had heard this is not said. Probably, however, they referred to some of his discourses with the people when he performed miracles and wonders among them, Act 6:8.
Blasphemous words – See the notes on Mat 9:3. Moses was regarded with profound reverence. His laws they held to be unchangeable. Any intimation, therefore, that there was a greater Lawgiver than he, or that his institutions were mere shadows and types, and were no longer binding, would be regarded as blasphemy, even though it should be spoken with the highest professed respect for Moses. That the Mosaic institutions were to be changed, and give place to another and a better dispensation, all the Christian teachers would affirm; but this was not said with a design to blaspheme or revile Moses. In the view of the Jews, to say that was to speak blasphemy; and hence, instead of reporting what he actually did say, they accused him of saying what they regarded as blasphemy. If reports are made of what people say, their very words should be reported; and we should not report our inferences or impressions as what they said.
And against God – God was justly regarded by the Jews as the giver of theft law and the author of their institutions. But the Jews, either willfully or involuntarily, not knowing that they were a shadow of good things to come, and were therefore to pass away, regarded all intimations of such a change as blasphemy against God. God had a right to change or abolish those ceremonial observances, and it was not blasphemy in Stephen to declare it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 6:11-15
Then they suborned men.
The accusation of Stephen
I. Its authors (Act 6:9). Observe here–
1. That moral perversity is common to men of every race. All these men, Libertines, etc., differing widely in many respects, agreed in their antagonism to the true and Divine.
2. That theological controversy often irritates rather than convinces.
II. Its spirit (Act 6:10)–hostility to a truth which they felt an utter incapacity to deny. An unpalatable truth was forced upon them, despite of all their learning and logic, by the overwhehning arguments of one man.
1. This mortified their pride. Nothing makes the soul so furious as to wound its pride.
2. This struck at their most cherished prejudices.
III. Its subject (Act 6:11; Act 6:13-14). The charge here preferred would be considered by the Sanhedrin as the most heinous of crimes, sufficient to wake the vengeance of the nation. Blasphemous words against Moses, God, the holy place, and the law, a threat to destroy Jerusalem and change the customs of the Jewish nation!
IV. Its weakness.
1. The mode of procuring witnesses (Act 6:11). Also that there should be men who prefer pelf to principle. Facts require no such support.
2. The appearance of the accused (Act 6:15).
(1) The face is the mirror of the soul.
(2) Christianity makes the soul angelic. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The arraignment and transfiguration of St. Stephen
It is necessary that the Bible should be brief. A book so important must be made portable by the hand and the memory. Accordingly, out of a vast mass of materials the sacred writers have been directed to the choice of a very few. The thirty-three miracles of our Lord are specimens; why should others yielding no fresh lessons be detailed? Tautology only weakens effect. St. Stephen supplied the inspired specimen of martyrdom, although there were many others. Conformity to Christs sufferings according to that Word, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup, etc. You have it here. Brave protest for Christ in the face of those who have power to kill the body–it is here. Joy in the hope set before the martyr–it radiates from Stephens face. Love to persecutors mingled with stern faithfulness–it exhales like a precious perfume from Stephens prayer. Studied imitation of Christ in the act of dying–nowhere is this more remarkably exhibited than in the death of Stephen. This providential conformity to the image of Christ, however (as distinct from the studied imitation of Him), is the first thing which strikes us. What befell the disciple is what befell the Master over again.
I. The conduct of Stephens opponents. Infuriated by defeat in argument, they resorted to calumny and violence. Agents were employed to set about a story of blasphemy. With precipitate violence–the word used is the one applied to the seizure of the demoniac by the legion of devils, and to the seizure of St. Pauls vessel by the fury of the wind–they laid hands on him and hurried him away to the Sanhedrin. The paid agents of the Hellenist synagogues pronounced the formal accusation, This man ceases not to speak, etc. Now the actual deposition is to be made, and the witnesses feel that their words may be called in question, we hear no more of the big terms of Act 6:11. God is exchanged for the holy place, and Moses for the law. Full well they knew that Stephen had said nothing derogatory of Moses, much less of God. No doubt he had said much to this effect. Christ had predicted that not one stone of the temple should be left upon another, and Stephen echoed the prediction. Stephen too had probably seen further into the mystery of the admission of the Gentiles, and very possibly may have preached that Jewish rites were non-essential to salvation. But if Stephen had foretold all this, why are the witnesses stigmatised as false? Because they took his words out of the context which interpreted them, and gave them a totally different colour. Doubtless, like his Master, Stephen had the profoundest veneration for the temple and the law. But he had an intelligent apprehension of the place which each held in the system of true religion. He saw that both were elements of a preparatory discipline, and that now faith is come the schoolmaster was unnecessary. A man who says that a school book may be parted with when education is finished, by no means implies that school books are unnecessary while education is in progress. And if the words School books are valueless were separated from his explanation of the circumstances, the witness would be false. By telling half the truth we may convey quite as wrong an impression as by a contradiction of the truth. Nothing is easier and commoner than to make sweeping charges against these who maintain suspected propositions, while wilfully ignoring their explanation of what they hold. I have no right to say that a man denies inspiration because he denies verbal inspiration; nor that he impugns the atonement because he dissents from certain popular views of it.
II. Stephens demeanour.
1. He heard the calumnious charge. It is not hard to see what course natural feeling would take. In the first place there would be indignation; and then would come perplexity as soon as it became apparent that the charge was so worded that it could not be met with simple flat denial. With these feelings fear would mingle, and altogether painful discomposure and hesitation of mind would be produced which would communicate itself to the feelings of the accused. But in that exciting moment Stephen retained the most perfect serenity of spirit. When the accusation was advanced, every member of the court turned to see how the servant of Christ thus brought to bay would look. Greatly were they surprised, and for the moment disconcerted. This was no wan and haggard culprit; those features spoke of nothing but communion with the invisible God, of the love, joy, and peace which are the result of such communion (Act 6:15)–a lower grade of transfiguration. The Sanhedrin are momentarily cowed, as the devils agents are so often by the majesty of holy innocence. Possibly the radiance of Stephens countenance reminded them of the similar radiance on Moses face, the result of similar communion with God.
2. Could there have been any nearer approach than this to our Lords circumstances? He, too, had been apprehended with sudden violence; in His case false witnesses were suborned; His words, too, were twisted from their meaning, and finally His demeanour made His enemies quail. It may have been that this conformity to his Masters image was the secret of the supernatural joy that radiated from Stephens countenance.
Application:
1. Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you: do not consider it foreign to Christian experience. If the Captain of our salvation was made perfect through suffering, let not His soldiers claim exemption. Therefore, when the cross is placed upon us, let us rejoice in the resemblance between us and our Master, and in the prospect of perfect conformity which that resemblance guarantees.
2. Let the supernatural radiance of Stephens features, caught from the contemplation of his Master, remind us of the spiritual transfiguration which should be daily proceeding in ourselves. Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed, etc., and the secret of this is disclosed in We all, with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed, etc. (Dean Goulburn.)
Stephen before his accusers
I. The character of Stephen (Act 6:8).
1. He was full of grace and power. That was his spiritual condition. Not all power, so as to be stern, tyrannous, overwhelming, but power characterised by love, geniality, sympathy, gentleness. Not all grace, lest he should be mistaken as a mere sentimentalist, who contented himself with exquisite expressions, without seeking their realisation in the sterner qualities of character. Stephen was by so much a complete man.
2. He did great wonders and miracles among the people. That was his outer life. Mark the beautiful correspondence between the spiritual and the active. The one accounts for the other. With less of a spiritual quality there would have been less of social demonstration and influence. The wonder was not a trick of the hand; it was an expression of the deep spiritual history of the souls life. The miracle was not painted on a board; it flamed forth from an inner and sacred fire. This description of Stephen should be the description of the Christian man and the Christian Church. Not a line can be added to this picture. We do no wonders and miracles. Why? Because we have so little grace and power. We have looked at the wrong end of this business. We have been wanting more wonders and more miracles instead of looking into the inner condition of the heart. Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good.
II. His accusers.
1. They were controversial, they disputed with Stephen. Controversy is not Christianity. It is most difficult for any man to be both a debater and a Christian. So long as the Church was in the era of suffering, she had no time for debate. Her controversies were then fights for life. The Christian life is always a controversy; but we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, etc. Let us all beware of the spirit of controversy, which delights in the rearrangement of words and forgets that Christianity is a sacrifice, a life of obedience.
2. Being controversial, they were as necessarily unjust. They suborned men to tell lies. The aim of debate is not to secure truth, but to secure some petty triumph, or to carry out to its melancholy end some rooted prejudice, or some discreditable antipathy. This is my fear of some collateral institutions which are formed in Christian churches. There are limits within which debate may be conducted to high intellectual advantage; but whoever enters upon a course of debate merely as such, without having as a supreme view to knowing, loving, accepting, and obeying the truth, puts his spiritual life to a severe strain. You will always find behind intellectual hostility to Christianity an explanatory moral condition. A man who does not love the light will use any excuse for getting out of it.
Learn from this narrative–
1. The danger which often accrues to truth from its supposed friends. We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God. This is one of the earliest instances of heresy-hunting. Once for all, let us lay it down as an impossibility that bad men are judges of truth and falsehood. Men who had accepted a bribe came up to defend orthodoxy! No blind man is appointed as a judge of pictures, and no deaf man of music. But a bad man goes to church, and ventures upon an opinion as to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the preacher, and says, with intolerable impertinence, that he himself may not be what he ought to be, but he knows the truth when he hears it! What is your life? What is your spirit? What are your wonders and miracles? And what is the interior condition of heart which explains them? These are the questions that ought to be answered. Search into narrow, envenomed, and ignoble criticism in every age, and you will find that the men who speak most against blasphemy in doctrine are often the men who could not live otherwise than by telling lies.
2. The manner in which slander should be met. What was Stephens condition at the time? Hearing these lies, he will surely spring from his seat and indignantly deny the impeachment! Some men say they cannot sit still and hear false statements about themselves. If they were greater men they would learn the art of patience. Great bodies are calm. Stephen sat still, but his face gleamed like an angel. Could you have seen the other faces–with the significant leer, the harsh mouths–you would have known, without hearing the defence, who was right and who was wrong. Would that we could look more and say less!
3. The transfiguring power of Christianity. The face of Stephen shone like the face of an angel. This is typical of character. Whenever character is under the influence of Christian inspiration it shines. Ye are the light of the world. It is typical also of the resurrection, the last grand miracle that shall be performed upon these common bodies. The face once dull shall be lighted up with an inward light that shall transfigure it into nobility and gracious expressiveness. It doth not yet appear what we shall be. Christianity never takes hold of any man without making him a new creature, and without investing him with new beauty, nobility, and occasionally even splendour of expression. But whether this can take place in the body or not, it always takes place in the character, and the character determines the man.
4. We can all be full of faith or grace, and we can all do miracles and wonders. We have been too content to sit down under the impression that miracles have ceased. But what a wonder it would be, for example, if some of us ever helped a fellow-creature under any circumstances whatsoever! That wonder is possible to you. What a wonder it would be for some of us could we ever be met in a good humour! Wonders, miracles, signs! Why, the difficulty is to escape them! What a wonder it would be if some of us could be patient under suffering! You thought the age of wonders was passed, because the merely introductory signs have disappeared! The blossom is gone that the fruit may come. And we of these latter times are called to exhibit the wonder of a disciplined character, the marvel of a sanctified temper, the glittering phenomenon of a truly obedient sonship. (J. Parker, D. D.)
We have heard him speak blasphemous words.—
A false accusation with a semblance of truth
We get in these words, in this false accusation, even through its falsehood, a glimpse into the character of St. Stephens preaching. A false accusation need not be necessarily altogether false. In order to be effective for mischief, a twisted, distorted charge, with some basis of truth, is the best for the accusers purpose, and the most difficult for the defendant to answer. St. Stephen was ripening for heaven more rapidly than the apostles themselves. He was learning more rapidly than St. Peter himself the true spiritual meaning of the Christian scheme. He had taught, in no ambiguous language, the universal character of the gospel and the Catholic mission of the Church. And the narrow-minded Grecian Jews, anxious to vindicate their orthodoxy, which was doubted by their Hebrew brethren, distorted Stephens wider and grander conception into a charge of blasphemy against the holy man. What a picture of the future of Christs best and truest witnesses, especially when insisting on some nobler and wider or forgotten aspect of truth. Their teaching has been ever suspected, distorted, accused as blasphemous; and so it must ever be. And yet Gods servants, when they find themselves thus misrepresented, can realise to themselves that they are but following the course which the saints of every age have run, that they are being made like unto the image of Stephen, the first martyr, and of Jesus Christ Himself, the King of Saints, who suffered under a similar accusation. St, Pauls teaching was accused of tending to licentiousness; the earliest Christians were accused of vilest practices; St. Athanasius, in his struggles for truth, was accused of rebellion and murder; the Reformers were accused of lawlessness; John Wesley of Romanism and disloyalty; William Wilberforce of being an enemy to British trade; John Howard of being an encourager of crime and immorality. Let us be content, then, if our lot be with the saints, and our portion be that of the servants of the Most High. Again, we learn from this place how religious zeal can overthrow religion and work out the purposes of evil. Men cannot, indeed, now suborn men and bring fatal charges against them in matters of religion, and yet they can fall into exactly the same crime. Party religion and party zeal lead men into precisely the same causes as they did in the days of St. Stephen. Partisanship causes them to violate all the laws of honour, of honesty, of Christian charity, imagining that they are thereby advancing the cause of Christ, forgetting that they are acting on the rule which the Scriptures repudiate, doing evil that good may come, and striving to further Christs kingdom by a violation of His fundamental precepts. Oh, for more of the spirit of true charity, which will lead men to support their own views in a spirit of Christian love! Oh, for more of that true grasp of Christianity which will teach that a breach of Christian charity is far worse than any amount of speculative error! (G. T. Stokes, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 11. Then they suborned men] . They made underhand work; got associated to themselves profligate persons, who for money would swear any thing.
Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.] This was the most deadly charge they could bring against him. We have already seen, Mt 9:4, that blasphemy, when against GOD, signifies speaking impiously of his nature, attributes, or works; and, when against men, it signifies speaking injuriously of their character, blasting their reputation, c. These false witnesses came to prove that he had blasphemed Moses by representing him as an impostor, or the like and GOD, by either denying his being, his providence, the justice of his government, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
What these blasphemous words were, we have, Act 6:14; which show, that the veil was yet over their hearts, and that they could not endure to hear, that the shadows must flee away when the sun is risen, and the types be abolished when the substance of the things typified is exhibited; for this truth was all the blasphemy this holy martyr was guilty of.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11-14. blasphemous words againstMosesdoubtless referring to the impending disappearance of thewhole Mosaic system.
and againstGodThis must refer to the supreme dignity and authority whichhe claimed for Christ, as the head of that new economy which was sospeedily to supersede the old (compare Act 7:56;Act 7:59; Act 7:60).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then they suborned men,…. Hired false witnesses, which seems to have been commonly done by the Jews; so they did in the case of Christ:
which said, we have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God; that is, against the law of Moses, and so against God, who gave the law to Moses, as appears from Ac 6:13 the blasphemous words seem to be, with respect to the ceremonial law, and the abrogation of it, which Stephen might insist upon, and they charged with blasphemy; see Ac 6:14.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Then they suborned men ( ). Second aorist active indicative of , old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one’s control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. Subornaverunt. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud.
Blasphemous words against Moses and God ( ). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See Mt 12:31 for discussion of the word , , , all in the N.T. from , to harm, and , speech, harmful speech, or , stupid, and . But the charge against Stephen was untrue. Please note that Moses is here placed before God and practically on a par with God in the matter of blasphemy. The purpose of this charge is to stir the prejudices of the people in the matter of Jewish rights and privileges. It is the Pharisees who are conducting this attack on Stephen while the Sadducees had led them against Peter and John. The position of Stephen is critical in the extreme for the Sadducees will not help him as Gamaliel did the apostles.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Suborned [] . Only here in New Testament. The verb originally means to put under, as carpets under one’s feet; hence, to put one person in place of another; to substitute, as another’s child for one’s own; to employ a secret agent in one’s place, and to instigate or secretly instruct him.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then they suborned men, which said,” (tote hupebalon andras legontas) “Then they suborned (enlisted by hire) men who said; The certain insurrectionists of the synagogue of Libertines, did the treacherous deed, Act 6:9, much as witnesses were hired to testify against Jesus Christ, Mat 26:54; Mat 26:46; Mat 26:59.
2) “We have heard him speak blasphemous words,” (hoti akekoamen autou lalountas hramata blasphama) “Who have repeatedly heard him ranting blasphemous matters,” Mat 26:60-66. The words were blasphemous only in a Judicial sense that they conflicted with the former law-order of worship given through Moses, Deu 13:6-11.
3) “Against Moses, and against God,” (eis Mouses kai ton theon) “With regards to Moses and God,” or against Moses and God, Mar 14:55-65, in conflict with the former program of worship and service that God gave to Moses and Israel till Jesus came, Mat 5:17-18; Joh 1:17; 2Co 3:7-11; Col 2:14-17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(11) Blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.The words indicate with sufficient clearness the nature of Stephens teaching. The charge was a false one, but its falsehood was a distortion of the truth, as that against our Lord had been. He was accused of blasphemy in calling Himself the Son of God; making Himself equal with God (Mat. 26:63; Joh. 5:18); threatening to destroy the Temple (Mat. 26:61)each of the counts in the indictment resting on words that He had actually spoken. And Stephen, in like manner, was charged with offences for which there must have seemed colourable ground. He had taught, we must believe, that the days of the Temple were numbered; that with its fall the form of worship of which it was the representative would pass away, that the Law given by Moses was to make way for the higher revelation in Christ, and the privileges of the elect nation to be merged in the blessings of the universal Church. In this case, accordingly, the antagonism comes, not only or chiefly, as in the previous chapters, from the Sadducean high priests and their followers, but from the whole body of scribes and people. Pharisees and Sadducees, Hebrews and Hellenist, are once more brought into coalition against the new truth.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘Then they suborned men, who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” ’
But those who took their defeat hard and were not willing to yield did what many do who lose an argument, they stirred up trouble for Stephen. They were genuinely angry and their policy was, if you cannot beat him have him beaten. Thus they raised up evil men to spread false rumours. These went about declaring that they had heard Stephen speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God. Men of strong belief are prone to see things that they do not agree with as blasphemous, especially if it shows up what they do believe in. It is a tendency when someone has a strong belief in something.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 6:11. Blasphemous words against Moses, &c. There is no reason to believe that Stephen knew the mystery of the abolition of the Mosaic law, which the apostles do not seem immediately to have understood: and it is much less probable, that he openly taught what St. Paul himself, many years after, insinuated with so much caution. See Gal 2:2. This, therefore, seems to have been the inference which they drew from what he taught concerning the destruction that he denounced on the Jews, if they continued in their unbelief: but it was a very precarious inference, as the city and temple had been destroyed before without any repeal of the law, and therefore they were false witnesses. Compare Act 6:13-14.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Ver. 11. Then they suborned ] This they had learned of that old manslayer,Joh 8:44Joh 8:44 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11 .] Neander well remarks (Pfl. u. Leit., p. 81 ff.) that this false charge, coupled with the character of Stephen’s apologetic speech, shews the real character of his arguments with his opponents : that he seems to have been the first who plainly set forth the transitory nature of the law and temple, as compared with the permanence of the latter and better covenant, thus being in a remarkable manner the forerunner of St. Paul.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 6:11 . : only found here in N.T., not in LXX in this sense; sub-ornaverunt ; Vulgate, submiserunt (Suet., Ner. , 28), cf. Appian, B. C. , i., 74, , and Jos., B. J ., v., 10, 41, . = , Hebraism, cf. Rev 13:1 ; Rev 17:3 , Winer-Schmiedel, p. 266. : Rendall draws a distinction between and in Act 6:13 , the former denoting charges of blasphemy about Moses, and the latter against , etc., cf. Act 2:25 , Heb 7:14 , but it is doubtful whether this distinction can be maintained, cf. Luk 12:10 ; Luk 22:65 . The R.V. renders both prepositions against: cf. Dan., LXX, Dan 7:25 , and Dan 3:29 (96; LXX and Theod.).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
suborned. Greek. hupoballo. Only here.
blasphemous. Greek. blasphemos. Here, Act 6:13. 1Ti 1:13. 2Ti 3:2. 2Pe 2:11.
words. Greek. rhema. See note on Mar 9:32.
Moses. See note on Act 3:22. Here meaning the Law.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
11.] Neander well remarks (Pfl. u. Leit., p. 81 ff.) that this false charge, coupled with the character of Stephens apologetic speech, shews the real character of his arguments with his opponents:-that he seems to have been the first who plainly set forth the transitory nature of the law and temple, as compared with the permanence of the latter and better covenant, thus being in a remarkable manner the forerunner of St. Paul.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 6:11. , then) The resource of those who prop up a falling cause.-, against or towards) The calumniators first speak here indefinitely; then definitely, Act 6:13-14.-) God Himself. The article implies an (augmented force, as compared with , which has no article. See Append.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
they: Act 23:12-15, Act 24:1-13, Act 25:3, Act 25:7, 1Ki 21:10, 1Ki 21:13, Mat 26:59, Mat 26:60, Mat 28:12-15, Joh 16:3, Rom 3:8
blasphemous: Act 6:13, Act 18:6, Act 26:11, Lev 24:16, 1Ki 21:10-13, Joh 10:33-36, 1Ti 1:13
against Moses: Act 7:37-39, Act 15:21, Act 21:20-22, Act 21:28, Joh 1:17, Joh 5:45-47, Joh 9:29, Heb 3:2-5
Reciprocal: Exo 23:1 – an unrighteous witness Lev 19:16 – stand Lev 24:11 – blasphemed Psa 27:12 – false Psa 52:2 – Thy Pro 19:28 – An ungodly witness Isa 32:7 – lying Jer 20:10 – Report Jer 26:11 – for he Jer 37:13 – Thou Eze 22:9 – men that carry tales Zec 11:3 – for their Mat 9:3 – This Mar 13:9 – take Mar 14:55 – sought Luk 5:21 – blasphemies Joh 9:28 – but Act 7:58 – stoned Act 24:9 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
Act 6:11.. Suborned is from HUPO-BALLO which Thayer defines, “To instruct privately; instigate, suborn.” It means they influenced these false wit nesses in an underhanded sort of way that was in the nature of a bribe. The inspired writer says that Stephen spoke with wisdom and spirit, so we know these witnesses made false statements, even though we do not have any record of what they said up to this point. But his speech that is recorded in the next chapter will show us that they were the ones who had blasphemed, for that speech is made up of a respectful recital of the history of many centuries, and that account was written by Moses whose inspiration Stephen recognized.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 6:11. Then they suborned men, which said. That is, they secretly instructed, having concerted together what should be said.
Blasphemous words. According to the law of Moses, blasphemy consisted in contempt of Moses and his institutions, and was a capital offence (see Deu 13:6; Deu 13:10). This charge brought against Stephen was the same which was made against Christ, and for which, as far as the Jews were concerned, He was condemned.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 6:11-14. Then they suborned men As they found they were incapable of defending themselves by fair argument, they had recourse to a most mean and dishonest fraud; they suborned men to bear false witness against him, and depose that they had heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses Their great and divinely-commissioned lawgiver; and against God The great author of that law which Moses delivered by command from him. They were right in supposing that they who blasphemed Moses, if they meant the writings of Moses, which were given by inspiration of God, blasphemed God himself. They that speak reproachfully of the Scriptures, and ridicule them, reflect upon God himself, and do despite to him. But did Stephen blaspheme Moses? By no means; he was far from it. Christ and the preachers of his gospel never said any thing that looked like blaspheming Moses; they always quoted his writings with respect; appealed to them, and said no other things but what Moses foretold should come. Very unjustly, therefore, is Stephen indicted for blaspheming Moses. On such terms, says Baxter, we dispute with malignant men: when they cannot resist the truth, they suborn men to swear to false accusations. And it is next to a miracle of Providence, that no greater number of religious persons have been murdered in the world, by the way of perjury and pretence of law, when so many thousands hate them, who make no conscience of false oaths. And they stirred up the people and the elders They incensed both the government and the mob against him, that if they could not prevail by the one, they might by the other; that if the sanhedrim should still think fit, according to Gamaliels advice, to let him alone, yet they might prevail against him by popular rage and tumult; or, if the people should countenance and protect him, they might effect his destruction by the authority of the elders and scribes. And came upon him, and caught him Greek, , rushing on him, they seized him, and brought him to the council; which, it seems, was then sitting; and there, in the presence of their highest court of judicature, they set up false witnesses Witnesses that they themselves knew to be false; who said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words These suborned witnesses, being brought together, imboldened one another in bearing a false testimony. Against this holy place Meaning the temple, where they then were; and the law The divinely- inspired law, as one that has no reverence at all for its authority. For we have heard him say, that Jesus shall destroy this place Perhaps they had, but that did not prove that he had been guilty of blasphemy. Thus Christ was condemned as a blasphemer, for words which were thought to reflect upon the temple, for the honour of which they seemed to be greatly concerned, at the very time when by their wickedness they were profaning it; making it not only a house of merchandise, but a den of thieves. And shall change the customs which Moses delivered us It is not probable that Stephen knew the mystery of the abolition of the Mosaic law, which even the apostles do not seem to have had now any idea of. And it is much less probable that he openly taught what Paul himself, many years after, only insinuated, and that with very great caution. Compare Gal 2:2. This therefore seems to have been merely an inference drawn by them from what he taught concerning the destruction coming on the Jews, if they continued in their unbelief: but it was a very precarious inference, as the city and temple had been destroyed before, without any repeal of the law, and therefore they were false witnesses. And they were still more so in affirming that in saying these things he had spoken blasphemous words against that holy place, and against the law What blasphemy was it against that holy place, which they at once profaned and idolized, to say that it should not be perpetual, any more than Shiloh was? And that the just and holy God would not continue the privileges of his sanctuary to those that abused them? Had not the prophets given the same warning to their fathers, of the destruction of that holy place by the Chaldeans? Nay, when the temple was first built, did not God himself give the same warning? This house, which is high, shall be an astonishment, 2Ch 7:21. And with respect to the law, which they charged him with blaspheming, that law of which they made their boast, and in which they put their trust, even then, when, through breaking it, they dishonoured God, (Rom 2:23,) how was Stephens saying, (if he really did say,) that Jesus would change the customs which Moses had delivered to them, blaspheming it or its glorious Author? Was it not foretold by the prophets, and therefore to be expected, that in the days of the Messiah, the old customs should be changed, and that the shadows should give place when the substance was come? This, however, was no essential change of the law, but the perfecting of it: for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; and if he changed some customs that Moses delivered, it was to introduce and establish those that were much better.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) “Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) “And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”
This is the first time that “the people” are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the “fear of the people” had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor.
The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy “against Moses and God,” otherwise expressed, “against this holy place, and the law.” The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: “We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 11
Suborned; procured by bribery.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Failing to prove Stephen wrong by intellectual argumentation, his adversaries falsely accused him of defying Moses and God (cf. Mat 26:61; Mat 26:65). At this time the Jews defined blasphemy as any defiant sin. [Note: Gustaf H. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, p. 314.]