Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:2

And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran,

2. And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken ] Omit men. Cp. Act 1:16, note. For an account of the argument in Stephen’s speech and its connection with the whole design of the writer of the Acts, see Introduction pp. ix. x.

The God of glory ] A not very common expression (see Psa 29:3), but probably chosen designedly as an introduction to this discourse, which deals with the several stages of God’s manifestation of Himself. The term is applied (Joh 1:14) to the incarnate Word; “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.”

appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia ] The ancestral home of Abraham is called “Ur of the Chaldees” (Gen 11:31), and it is said (Jos 24:2-3) to have been “on the other side of the flood,” i.e. beyond the Euphrates. It is not possible to determine the site of Ur, but the most probable opinion seems to be that which places it at Edessa, now called Orfah, and said to have been called Orrha in early times. If this were the place the journey thence to Charran (O.T. Haran), i.e. Carrh, would not have been so very formidable for the father of the patriarch to undertake, and at Charran Terah remained till he died (Gen 11:32). Abraham when without his father could remove with greater ease to the distant Canaan.

our father Abraham ] If Stephen were merely a proselyte he might yet use this expression, for Abraham is regarded as the father of proselytes. On Gen 12:5, “The souls which they had gotten [Heb. made ] in Haran,” the Targum of Onkelos explains “The souls which they (Abraham and his family) had brought to serve the Law,” i.e. made them proselytes: and on the same text Berashith Rabbah, par. 39, has “Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Zimra, said: If all the men in the world were to combine to create even a single gnat, they could not infuse into it a soul; and thou sayest, ‘The souls which they made.’ But these are the proselytes whom they brought in. Yet, if so, why does it say they made them? This is to teach thee that when anybody brings near the stranger, and makes him a proselyte, it is as good as if he had created him.”

before he dwelt in Charran ] The Greek verb rendered dwelt is one which implies a settled residence, though it conveys no idea of permanent abode. It is used (Mat 2:23) of Joseph and Mary dwelling at Nazareth, and (Mat 4:13) of Christ’s less fixed dwelling in Capernaum.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 (Robinsons Calmet).

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 2. Men, brethren, and fathers] Rather, brethren and fathers, for should not be translated separately from . Literally it is men-brethren, a very usual form in Greek; for every person knows that and should not be translated men-Athenians and men-Persians, but simply Athenians and Persians. See Ac 17:22. So, in Lu 2:15, should be translated shepherds, not men-shepherds. And Mt 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 Ac 8:27.

The God of glory appeared, c.] 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 Clarke on Ge 11:31.

Before he dwelt in Charran] This is called Haran in our translation of Ge 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, See Clarke on Ge 12:1.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Brethren; to take away any prejudice they might have conceived against him, and to recommend, not his person as much as his doctrine to them, he calls them brethren;

1. As hoping in the same promises with them;

2. Observing the same law;

3. Worshipping the same God.

Fathers; a word of respect; especially the elder amongst them, or his judges: thus the Roman senators were called fathers; and magistrates ought to be reverenced as the fathers of their country.

The God of glory; who is also called, Psa 24:7, the King of glory; from whom all glory descends to angels or men. By this, and what follows, St. Stephen would show that he honoured the true God, and thought respectfully of the law, the temple, and the patriarchs, whom he was accused to contemn and disgrace. He names Abraham, because he was accounted the first father and patriarch of the Jews, and had the first clear promise that the Messiah should come of his seed.

Mesopotamia is sometimes taken strictly for that country which lies between the two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, from whence it had its name; sometimes more largely, including Chaldea; and so it is taken here.

Charran; a city of the Parthians, in the borders of Mesopotamia, towards the land of Canaan.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2-5. The God of gloryAmagnificent appellation, fitted at the very outset to rivet thedevout attention of his audience; denoting not that visible glorywhich attended many of the divine manifestations, but the glory ofthose manifestations themselves, of which this was regarded by everyJew as the fundamental one. It is the glory of absolutely free grace.

appeared unto our fatherAbraham before he dwelt in Charran, and said, c.Though thisfirst call is not expressly recorded in Genesis, it is clearlyimplied in Gen 15:7 Neh 9:7;and the Jewish writers speak the same language.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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

Ge 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 comments on Ac 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 Ge 11:31 where the Septuagint call it “Charan”, as here; and by Herodish u it is called , where Antoninus was killed; and by Pliny w, “Carra”; and by Ptolomy x, “Carroe”; it was famous for the slaughter of M. Crassus, by the Parthians y. R. Benjamin gives this account of it in his time z;

“in two days I came to ancient Haran, and in it were about twenty Jews, and there was as it were a synagogue of Ezra; but in the place where was the house of Abraham our father, there was no building upon it; but the Ishmaelites (or Mahometans) honour that place, and come thither to pray.”

Stephanus a says it was a city of Mesopotamia, so called from “Carra”, a river in Syria.

r Pirke Eliezer, c. 26. s Bereshit Rabba, sect. 30. fol. 25. 1 t lb. sect. 44. fol. 38. 3. u L. 4. sect. 24. w L. 5. c. 24. x L. 5. c. 18. y —-Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas. Lucan. Pharsal. l. 1. v. 105. z Itinerar. p. 60. a De Urbibus.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Brethren and fathers ( ). The spectators (brethren) and members of the Sanhedrin (fathers) as Paul in Ac 22:1.

Hearken (). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative, Give me your attention now.

The God of glory (H ). The God characterized by glory (genitive case, genus or kind) as seen in the Shekinah, the visible radiance of God. Jesus is also called “the Glory”=the Shekinah in Jas 2:1. Cf. Exod 25:22; Exod 40:34; Lev 9:6; Heb 9:5. By these words Stephen refutes the charge of blasphemy against God in Ac 6:11.

Appeared (). First aorist passive indicative of . See on Lu 23:43. Before there was temple or tabernacle and away over in Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldees, Ge 11:31), even before ( with the infinitive) he dwelt in Haran (, or Carrae not far from Edessa, where Crassus met death after his defeat by the Parthians B.C. 53).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Brethren. Addressing the audience generally.

Fathers. Addressing the members of the Sanhedrim.

Of glory. Outward, visible glory, as in the shekinah and the pillar of fire.

Appeared [] . See on Luk 22:43.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

The historical Defense of Stephen v. 2-53

1) “And he said,” (ho de ephe) “And he (Stephen) replied or responded,” to the false charges of the lying witnesses before the stacked jury of adversaries.

2) “Men, brethren, fathers, hearken; (andres adelphoi kai pateres akousate) “Ye responsible men, brethren, and fathers, give heed, earnest and honest attention;” A respectful appeal to those of his own race and family lineage, similar to Paul’s later address, Act 22:1; Act 23:1.

3) “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham,” (ho theos tes dokes ophthe to patri hemon Abraam) “The one true God of glory appeared to Abraham our patriarch father,” the God who is the source of shekinah glory, Exo 24:16-17; Psa 29:3; 1Co 2:8.

4) “When he was in Mesopotamia,” (onti en te Mesopotamia) “While he was (existing) living, down in Mesopotamia,” in the land between the rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris, Gen 15:7; Jos 24:3; Ne 93; Rom 4:3.

5) “Before he dwelt in Charran,” (prin e Katoikesai auton en charran) “Before the time he ever dwelt in Charran,” as recounted, Gen 11:31-32; Gal 3:6.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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. Neither 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. Nevertheless, 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.

(371) “ Migravit,” migrated.

(372) “ Geographi,” geographers.

(373) “ Leves et inconsiderati homines,” fickle and inconsiderate.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 7:2. Concerning what Stephen said in reply, Lukes information may have been derived either from Paul, who probably was present on the occasion (Act. 26:10), and afterwards in his own speeches and writings reproduced the martyrs language (compare Act. 7:48 with Act. 16:24, and Act. 7:53 with Gal. 3:19), or from records of it preserved by the Church at Jerusalem. The God of glory.i.e., who manifested His presence by means of the glory (Exo. 16:7; Exo. 16:10; Exo. 24:16; Exodus 17; Exo. 33:18; Exo. 33:22; Exo. 40:34; Exodus 35; Lev. 9:6; Leviticus 23; Num. 14:10; Num. 14:21-22)i.e., of the Shechinah or luminous appearance which shone between the Cherubim (Psa. 80:1). Before he dwelt in Charran, or Haran.Carr in North-West Mesopotamia, about twenty-five miles from Edessa, one of the supposed sites of Ur of the Chaldees, which, however, is now almost unanimously found in Hur, the most important of the early capitals of Chalda, the present-day Mugheir, at no great distance from the mouth and six miles to the west of the Euphrates. That Stephens statement does not contradict Genesis. (Act. 12:1), which places the call of Abraham at Haran (Holtzmann) may be inferred from these facts

(1) that Gen. 15:7 and Neh. 9:7 both represent Ur of the Chaldees as the locality in which Abraham received Jehovahs call, and

(2) that with these both Josephus and Philo agree. There is nothing unreasonable in supposing the call to have been given twice, first in Ur and again in Haran.

Act. 7:4. When his father was dead.If Abraham was Terahs firstborn (Gen. 11:26), and seventy-five when he departed from Haran (Gen. 12:4), then Terah could only have been one hundred and forty-five years old at his death, whereas, according to Gen. 11:32, Terah was two hundred and five when he died, and must have survived Abrahams departure from Haran by sixty years; but if Abraham was Terahs youngest son, and born in Terahs one hundred and thirtieth year, which, according to the Hebrew narrative, is not impossible, then as Abraham was seventy-five years old when he migrated from Haran, Terah must have been two hundred and five when he diedwhich agrees with Stephens narrative. For he removed the best texts read (God) removed him.

Act. 7:5. None inheritance in it.Not contradicted by Abrahams purchase of the field and cave at Machpelah (Gen. 23:9-11), which were meant for a possession of a burying place but not for an inheritance in the strict sense of the term.

Act. 7:6. Four hundred years.If Stephen included in these four centuries the whole period of sojourning, bondage, and oppression, exactly as Jehovah did in Genesis (Act. 15:13), this seems to be at variance with Pauls reckoning of the interval between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law as four hundred and thirty years (Gal. 3:17), which interval again is represented in Exodus (Exo. 12:40) as the sojourning of Israel who dwelt in Egypt. Assuming that four hundred may have been a round number for four hundred and thirty, the difficulty remains how to harmonise the statements of Stephen and Paul. If, according to Paul, the interval from Abraham to Moses was four hundred and thirty years, then, inasmuch as Isaac was born twenty-five years after the promise was first given, and was sixty years old at the birth of Jacob, who was one hundred and thirty years of age when he stood before Pharaoh, then 430 (25 + 60 + 130) = 215, which leaves only two hundred, and fifteen for the years of exile, bondage, and oppression. Either, therefore, Stephen, following the LXX. version of Exo. 12:40, which inserts in the land of Canaan after in the land of Egypt, designed his four hundred years to embrace the same period as Pauls four hundred and thirty indicatea view supported by Josephus (Ant., II. xv. 2), or he followed Gen. 15:13, and understood the four hundred to refer to the Egyptian sojourn, bondage, and oppression, in which case he is again supported by Josephus (Ant., II. ix. 1; Wars, V. ix. 4), who gives both views, but not by Paul. It would remove all appearance of contrariety if Gen. 15:13 signified by a land not theirs, Canaan as well as Egypt; if this cannot be done, then at the worst Paul and Stephen must be held to have followed different traditions.

Act. 7:7. They shall come forth and serve Me in this place.They shall come hither again of Gen. 15:16 is replaced by and serve Me in this place, suggested by rather than borrowed from Exo. 3:2, in which the words are ye shall serve God upon this mountain. Stephen, unintentionally mixing up the passages in Genesis and Exodus, may not have been hindered by the Spirit, because the sentiment he expressed was correct; or under the Spirits guidance he may have selected the new clause suggested by Exodus to explain the import of the one in Genesis.

Act. 7:8. The covenant of circumcision.I.e., of which circumcision was the sign. See Rom. 4:11. The twelve patriarchs.I.e., the twelve sons of Jacob as the founders of the tribes or heads of the families of Israel. The term also applied to Abraham (Heb. 7:4) and to David (Act. 2:29).

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 7:2-8

The Progenitor of Israel; or, the History of Abraham

I. The honours he received.

1. An overpowering revelation.

(1) Of what? Of the glory of God. The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham. This remarkable expression, the God of glory, which occurs only here in the New and but once in the Old Testament (Psa. 29:3), nevertheless has its roots in and receives explanation from the latter. Without question it points back to the transaction at Sinai (Exo. 16:7; Exo. 16:10; Exo. 24:16), and identifies the divine Being whose external and symbolic form, an ethereal luminous essence, appeared in the cloud upon the mountain summit (Exo. 24:17), and afterwards filled the tabernacle (Exo. 40:34), as the same who had revealed Himself to the son of Terah. Whether He appeared in a similar fashion as at Sinai cannot be decided, although Stephens language and sundry notices in Genesis (Act. 15:17; Act. 17:22) almost warrant an affirmative answer. In any case, it does not seem possible to reduce this theophany to a mere subjective impression on the patriarchs mind.

(2) Where? In Mesopotamia, or the region between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates; not, however, in the northern district, but in the south, in the land of the Chaldeansi.e., in Ur (Gen. 15:7), now identified as Mugheir (see Critical Remarks).

(3) When? Before he dwelt in Haran, and whilst his father was yet alive. The statement of Stephen does not contradict but supplements that of Genesis (Act. 12:1), which appears to say, but does not necessarily mean, that the order to depart from his fathers house was only given to the patriarch in Haran. Haran was not Abrahams country or land of his nativity, but the land of the Chaldees was (Gen. 11:28).

2. An imperative command.

(1) To get out from his land and from his kindred, or, in other words, to become a pilgrim. Hard as the summons was, it was obediently complied with. Abrahams pilgrimage commenced at Ur, and reached its first stage at Haran. Five years later, on his fathers (Terahs) death, it entered on its second and final stage.

(2) To betake himself to a new country, the land of Canaan, wherein they, his descendants, were then dwelling; a land which God would show him, a mitigation of the preceding hardship, since a pilgrim under Gods leading must always be safe, and can never come to grief. That Abraham yielded obedience to this command was a signal proof of faith (Heb. 11:8).

3. A gracious promise.

(1) Of a land for a possession, the land of Canaan above-mentioned. Broad acres have ever been a coveted and cherished inheritance. But God, the supreme owner of the soil, distributes them to whomsoever He will. If this promise was broken to the hand and foot, it was kept to the heart and spirit (see below).

(2) Of a son for an heir. Offspring, especially among the Hebrews, has ever been a much-prized blessing. No one man likes to be succeeded by a stranger, and far less to leave his wealth to a servant. Yet just this was the prospect which Abraham at the moment had before him (Gen. 15:2). Like land, children are the gift of God (Psa. 127:3).

(3) Of a nation for descendants. Most men count themselves happy when they can found a family; but God promised Abraham that his offspring should ultimately develop into a people (Gen. 13:16), which, after sojourning in a strange land (Egypt) in a state of bondage for four hundred years, should be emancipated from their thraldom and conducted to their inheritance.

4. A solemn covenant. One would have thought a promise from Gods lips would have been sufficient guarantee for the bestowment of the above-named blessings: and, so far as Gods creature is concerned, that is all he can at any time expect to receive; but, marvellous condescension! God has frequently been pleased to add to His spoken word a visible pledge or sealin Noahs case the rainbow (Gen. 9:12-17), in Abrahams circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14), the import of which was that Israel after the flesh should be a separated, purged, and consecrated people.

II. The virtues he displayed.

1. Faith. He believed in God, credited the revelation which had been given him, accepted the invitation proffered him, relied on the promise made to him, and assented to the covenant which had been struck with him. Had faith been awantingsuch faith as is the substance of things hoped for (Heb. 11:1) and reposes on Gods word (Joh. 3:33)nothing of a spiritual sort could have followed.

2. Obedience. He promptly, cheerfully, and faithfully performed that which God had commanded. First, he went out from Ur along with Terah his father, Sarah his sister-wife, and Lot his nephew (Gen. 11:31); and afterwards, when Terah was dead, removing from Haran, he migrated southwards to Canaan.

3. Patience. Though on arriving in Canaan it looked as if the promise were about to fail, as if he were to obtain neither the inheritance nor the heir, yet he quietly adhered to the word which had been spoken (Rom. 4:20; Heb. 6:15). Nor did he abandon hope when God talked about four hundred years of servitude for his posterity, but calmly rested in God and waited for the fulfilment of what had been promised.

4. Insight. He could see that Jehovahs promise was larger than any immediate or earthly fulfilment could realisethat the seed was One higher than a child of his loins, even One in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed (Joh. 8:56), and that the land was something more desirable than an earthly inheritance like Canaan, was a better country, even an heavenly (Heb. 11:10).

III. The rewards he obtained.

1. Gods promise was fulfilled. He got his son and heirAbraham begat Isaac. His sons descendants grew into a familyIsaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs. Their households (threescore and fifteen souls, Act. 7:14) multiplied into a nation. The nation eventually entered on the occupation of the land (Act. 7:45).

2. His own horn was exalted. He became the ancestor of the Jewish people, the progenitor of the Messiah, the father of the faithful, the world-renowned pattern of believers.

Learn.

1. The sovereignty of God in dispensing His favours.
2. The wisdom of man in walking by faith.
3. The certainty that believers will, ultimately, inherit the promises.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 7:2. The God of Glory.The fitness of this designation will appear when it is considered that

I. Gods dwelling-place is glorious. Heaven (Deu. 26:15); eternity (Isa. 57:15); both of which are the habitation of His holiness and His glory (Isa. 63:15); and in both of which are glory and honour (1Ch. 16:27.

II. His character is glorious. In holiness (Exo. 15:11); in power (Exo. 15:6; Isa. 63:12; 2Th. 1:9); in grace (Eph. 1:6). Or, summing up all His attributes His Name is glorious (1Ch. 29:13; Psa. 72:19).

III. His works are glorious. The creation of the material universe (Psa. 19:1). His providential government of earth (Isa. 63:14; Psa. 120:3; Psa. 145:11; Mat. 6:13) His redemption of a lost world (Psa. 98:2; Isa. 52:10; Eph. 1:3; 2Ti. 1:9).

IV. His word is glorious. Twice at least is the gospel so designated (2Co. 4:4; 1Ti. 1:11).

V. His Church is glorious. The company of redeemed ones will yet be presented before Him as a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle (Eph. 5:27).

VI. His final appearing will be glorious. Christ, the image of God, will one day be manifested in glory (Col. 3:4; Tit. 2:13).

Act. 7:5. Gods Promises to His People.

I. Often broken in the letter but kept in the spirit.As it was with the promise of Canaan to Abraham.

II. Though long delayed in fulfilment, never cancelled.As it was with the promise of a son to Abraham.

III. Sometimes denied to the promisees but granted to their children.As it was with the inheritance which Abraham obtained not, though his seed did.

Act. 7:2-5. The History of a Called Sinner.

I. The divine.In Abrahams case this consists of two parts: first, the vision; and, secondly, the command.

1. The vision. The God of glory appeared. Here was

(1) the divine suddenly appearing in the midst of the human,

(2) the true in the midst of the untrue;

(3) the heavenly in the midst of the earthly;

(4) the real in the midst of the unreal. So is it with every genuine conversion; there may not be the actual vision; there may not be the glory which appeared to Abraham in Ur, and to Saul on his way to Damascus; but in all cases it is God breaking in upon man and mans idolatry; the light of the knowledge of the glory flashing into a soul; the light dispelling the darkness; the true dispersing the untrue; the heavenly supplanting the earthly. This is conversion. It is God coming near; coming in!

2. The command. Get thee out,go to the land I shall point to. It thus consists of two parts: calling out from, and calling in to. It is a Divine command, urgent and explicit.

II. The human.This consists of four parts.

1. The obedience. He came out of the land of the Chaldeans. He hesitated not, but rose up and obeyed.

2. The pilgrimage. He is not led into Canaan at once.

3. The tribulation. In Abrahams case it was considerable. Lots worldliness, that was a trial; the destruction of Lots family, and of Sodom, that was a trial; the death of Sarah, that was a trial. He had many a sorrow.

4. The inheritance at last. Not Babylon, nor Egypt, but the land flowing with milk and honey. Thus our whole life here is one of faith, from first to last. Get thee out, is Gods message to each worldling.H. Bonar, D.D.

Act. 7:6. A great Prophecy and its Fulfilment.

I. The prophecy.

1. That Abraham should have a seed, when as yet he had no child.
2. That that seed should grow into a people, of which no reasonable prospect existed.
3. That that people should be enslaved for a period of four hundred years.
4. That the nation which enslaved them should be visited with severe punishment.
5. That this punishment should result in their emancipation.
6. That when emancipated they should serve God in the land of Canaan.

II. The fulfilment.

1. The seed predicted appeared when Isaac was born.
2. The people arose when the patriarchs began to multiply in the days of Jacob.
3. The captivity commenced to realise itself when the seventy souls comprising Jacobs family went down into Egypt.
4. The punishment threatened against their oppressors took the form of a series of plagues upon the land of Egypt.
5. The emancipation came to pass when Moses led his brethren from the house of bondage.
6. The foretold service of Jehovah was set up when Israel was established in Canaan.

Lessons.

1. The ability of God to predict and to fulfil.
2. The argument from fulfilled prophecy in support of inspiration.

Act. 7:8. The Twelve Patriarchs.

I. Descendants of distinguished men.

II. Not above cherishing sinful feelings.

III. Perpetrators of a hideous crime.

IV. Subjects of a great mercy (Act. 7:13).

Act. 7:2-8. The experiences of a soulillustrated in the case of Abraham.

I. A glorious vision.God. Not impossible to see God by the eye of faith. God still, by His Spirit and through His gospel, reveals Himself to mens souls. In this inshining of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ lies the beginning of the souls new life.

II. A hard precept.Get thee out of thy country, etc. When God makes Himself known to a human soul in the manner above described, it is for the purpose of detaching that soul from its earthly surroundings, separating it from its mundane attachments, leading it forth from its terrestrial relationships, and causing it to start upon a nobler spiritual career.

III. A magnificent promise. That God would conduct him (Abraham) to another and better land, and bestow it on himself and his posterity. Similarly, God never enjoins a soul to enter on a heavenward career without extending to that soul a like assurance of help and guidance towards that ideal state after which it aspires. To the soul that comes God will shew.

IV. A splendid faith.Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans. Without that response to the divine precept and promise Abraham had never set his foot upon the upward way. Spiritual life on the souls side begins with personal acts of trust and obedience. The soul that cannot surrender to God in hearty confidence and prompt submission lacks the capability of being redeemed.

V. A sore disappointment.Though Abraham obeyed, God gave him none inheritance in the land. The reason was, that God had provided for him something better. God never intended to put him off with a few acres of material soil, but had prepared for him a city in a better country, even an heavenly. The disappointment was required to prepare him for this city. Neither does God engage that gracious souls shall not be disappointed if they seek their inheritance on earth; but he does engage that all things shall work together for their good, and that they shall have an inheritance among the saints in light (Col. 1:12).

VI. A sufficient consolation.The covenant of circumcision which formed Abrahams descendants into a people was a pledge that the land for the people would not be wanting, but would arrive in due time. So to Christian souls is Gods covenant of grace, signed and sealed by the sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, ample guarantee that the heavenly inheritance will not fail.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(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 (Act. 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. Act. 7:53, Gal. 3:19; Act. 7:48, Act. 17:24). (3) The speech is the first great survey of the history of Israel as a process of divine educationthe 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 Lords teachingEphphatha, Talitha cumi, and the cry upon the crossthat He habitually used the former language, and that this was the medium of intercourse between the priests and Pilate. (See Notes on Mar. 5:41; Mar. 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. Jas. 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 Gen. 12:1 it is first mentioned after Abrahams removal thither. On the other hand, Gen. 15:7 speaks of God as bringing him from Ur of the Chaldeesi.e., from Mesopotamia, or the east of the Euphrates; and this is confirmed by Jos. 24:3, Neh. 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-Naharaim, Syria of the two rivers (Gen. 24:10; Deu. 23:4; Jdg. 3:8), and, less accurately, for Padan-Aram in Gen. 25:20; Gen. 28:2; Gen. 28:5-6; where our version retains the Hebrew name.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

I. Transition from Chaldea to Canaan by Abraham, Act 7:2-8.

The very selection of the holy place was really attained by a great transition from the old state of things. Stephen’s purpose in tracing this history of Abraham’s secession Isaiah , 1 st, to show that he is himself in faith still a true Abrahamic Jew; 2d, that Abraham, like Jesus and the Church, in attaining a holy ultimate departed from the old order and encountered difficulties and oppositions at every step; and, 3d, that God is no local deity so attached to one sacred spot but that the true Abrahamic worshipper may anywhere find his God. On the second of these three points Stephen shows that by the command of God Abraham seceded from the idolatrous Chaldeans, and from a probably idolatrous father; and when he arrived at the spot, now held so immutably sacred, he found it preoccupied by the Canaanites, and attained nothing but a promise of its possession in the indefinite future.

The God of glory Not, as some have feebly rendered it, The glorious God, but the God of that glory which Stephen beheld, Act 7:55. This glory was the visible resplendence of Jehovah’s own presence and person. It was called by the later Jewish writers the Shekinah, from the Hebrew shakan, to dwell. Thus the blaze of the burning bush that appeared to Moses, the splendour of the cloudy pillar that guided Israel, the “glory of the Lord a devouring fire” on Mount Sinai, the sudden flash that destroyed Nadab and Abihu, and the luminous splendour that filled the temple of Solomon at the dedication, were so many instances of the manifestation of the Shekinah, or dwelling Jehovah. In Rom 9:4, among the prerogatives of Israel over Gentilism Paul enumerates the glory.

Mesopotamia A Greek compound term signifying Between-the-rivers; namely, the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. According to Gen 11:31, the original residence of Abraham was in Ur of the Chaldees, whence he was brought by his father to Haran, or Charran.

Before he dwelt in Charran God’s first appearance to Abraham mentioned in the Old Testament was not before he dwelt in Charran, but (Gen 12:1-4) while he there dwelt. But there are traces in the Old Testament (Gen 11:31) of a previous call, namely, in Ur of the Chaldeans; thus, (Gen 15:7,) “I am Jehovah who brought thee out of Ur in Chaldea,” implies a divine call made in Chaldea itself. (See also Neh 9:7.) And this is in accordance with the doctrine of Philo and other Jewish writers.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2. As a young man Stephen addresses his fellows as men and brethren, his seniors as fathers. Though a Nazarene, (the future epithet will be Christian,) he will stay, with a mild firmness, in the family of Israel.

Hearken It has been a problem with commentators how this recital of Hebrew history constitutes a defence of Stephen. But, in fact, it is his loyalty to the glories of that history which is in question, and his rehearsal is a full profession of earnest loyalty. God, Moses, the holy land, the patriarchs, the temple, the ritual, (the five points of accusation, Act 6:13,) are all duly canonized in the recital. Yet under the recital, meanwhile, lurk the grounds of the great inference, which Stephen must be slow and cautious in disclosing, that this whole history converges upon Jesus Messiah. To the hearers of Stephen, familiar with the state of the debates in the synagogues, the points and applications of his speech were doubtless understood and felt.

For amid the permanence of many fundamental things in this history, such as God and the true Church of Israel, there were many transitions and changes, namely, of places, and buildings, and rituals, and eminent typical characters. And it is in rightly separating the permanent from the vanishing that the truth is attained in Christ. The report of this speech most commentators credit to Paul. And it is clear he ever retained impressive memories of this tragic scene. Yet to Luke himself (not, probably, without Paul’s aid) we would rather attribute the record.

We are able to trace in Stephen’s rehearsal of history four great transition periods, to each of which belongs a great typical personage. Period 1 st ( 2-8) is the transition from Chaldea to Canaan, in which the typical name is Abraham. Period 2 d (9-19) is the transition from Canaan to Egypt, and the typical character is Joseph. Period 3 d (20-43) is the transition from Egypt to Canaan, and the typical character is Moses. Period 4 th (44-50) is the transition of the Church from the old tabernacle to the temple, and the typical character is Solomon. From all this, had his speech not been cut short by interruption, he would have shown that the coming of Jesus Messiah must be the fifth and greatest of all transition periods, in which Jesus is not so much the typical character as the antitype to which all the previous characters pointed. In tracing the history of these transitions he shows that, subsequent to the founder Abraham, the great leaders of each change were traduced and persecuted by their opponents; just as at the present day the followers of Jesus were persecuted by the Sanhedrin and its adherents. Jesus and his followers are therefore in the bright side of that history and his opponents are in its shade. Throughout nearly the whole, Stephen traces the divine hand as guiding the advance of these developments. It is the God of glory (Act 7:2) who originates the whole process.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2. Devout men The term would in itself include Christians, or pious Jews. Both may have commingled in the funeral of the martyr, and that may have been the reason why Luke uses a term that includes both. This contradicts not the fact that the persecution already existed. The plot was being organized, and its subsequent execution was probably aggravated by the dangerously open display of the funeral.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘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 Psa 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 (Psa 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 glory  thunders,

Even Yahweh on many waters.”

No 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 Act 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 (Gen 10:9-12) and it was there that they offended God with the tower which was the result of their God-provoking aspirations (Gen 11:1-9). It was the land of rebellion and of the occult (see Isa 47:12-13). Isaiah constantly revealed Babylon as the great blasphemer and anti-God that had had to be destroyed (Isa 13:19-20; Isa 14:14-20; Isa 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 Gen 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 Gen 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 (Gen 11:32), and to be connected with that (Gen 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 Act 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 (Jos 24:14). Nevertheless 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. No 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 Act 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 Act 12:1 could be applied back to there. Nor 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 (Act 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.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

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 (Act 6:15) and later the charge against them is that they ‘received the Law as ordained by angels and kept it not’ (Act 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 (Act 7:2) and the speech ends with a vision of the glory of God (Act 7:55).

3) Abraham was delivered by being called from the land of the Chaldaeans (Babylon) (Act 7:4), and in the end his descendants were carried back beyond Babylon (Act 7:43).

4) Abraham and his seed were given the covenant of circumcision (Act 7:8), but in the end their successor’s hearts were seen to be uncircumcised (Act 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 (Act 7:1-4 a).

b Abraham’s descendants live outside the land free from idolatry, looking for their future hope (Act 7:4-8).

c Joseph the Deliverer from affliction is raised up, rejected, and finally delivers. The patriarchs are buried in the land (Act 7:9-16).

c Moses the Deliverer from affliction is raised up, rejected, and finally delivers. The people possess the land (Act 7:17-38).

b Abraham’s descendant’s live in the land and look to idols,(Act 7:39-43 a).

a Abraham’s descendants are returned to Babylon (Act 7:43 b).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 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 Nazareth would destroy the temple where they were then assembled, and change the rites of Moses, Ch. Act 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, Act 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 Gen 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. Act 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, Joh 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. Act 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 desig

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 7:2-3 . Brethren and respectively ( ) fathers . The former ( kinsmen , ) refers to all present; the latter (comp. the Latin Patres and the Hebrew in respectful address to kings, priests, prophets, and teachers; Lightfoot, ad Marc. p. 654), to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp. Act 22:1 .

] God, who has the glory. And this ( ), as it stands in significant relation to , must be understood as outward majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly manifests Himself. Comp. Act 7:55 ; Exo 24:16 ; Isa 6:3 ; Psa 24:7 ; Psa 29:3 ; and on 1Co 2:8 .

Haran, , LXX. , with the Greeks (Herodian. iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. xvi. 1, p. 747) and Romans (“miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carrhas,” Lucan. i. 104; comp. Dio Cass. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 3) and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia. See Mannert, Geogr. V. 2, p. 280 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XI. 291 ff. The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by Act 7:3 as that narrated in Gen 12:1 . But this occurred when Abraham had already departed from Ur to Haran (Gen 11:31 ); accordingly not: . This discrepancy [196] is not to be set at rest by the usual assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probably derived from Gen 15:7 , comp. Neh 9:7 (Philo, de Abr. II. pp. 11, 16, ed. Mang.; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1; see Krause, l.c. p. 11), that Abraham had already had a divine vision at Ur, to which Stephen refers, while in Gen 12 there is recorded that which afterwards happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, Act 7:3 , admits of no other historical reference than to Gen 12:1 . Stephen has thus, according to the text, erroneously (speaking off-hand in the hurry of the moment, how easily might he do so!) transferred the theophany that happened to Abraham at Haran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur , full of the thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the people afterwards so refractory! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius: “Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evangelica; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit quae sunt hominum”), and not to be evaded by having recourse (see Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others) to an anticipation in Gen 11:31 , according to which the vision contained in Act 12:1 is supposed to have preceded the departure from Ur; or, by what professes to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary assumption “that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigration of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran” (Baumgarten, p. 134), to which primordial hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back.

.] for the land of Ur ( , Gen 11:28 ) was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which the Chaldeans inhabited; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8 mentions as castellum Persicum , whose situation must be conceived as farther south than Haran. See, after Tuch and Knobel on Genesis, Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. XVI. p. 735.

] see on Mat 1:18 .

] quamcunque tibi monstravero . “Non norat Abram, quae terra foret,” Heb 11:8 , Bengel.

[196] Ewald explains the many deviations in this speech from the ordinary Pentateuch, by the supposition that the speaker followed a later text-book, then much used in the schools of learning, which had contained such peculiarities. This is possible, but cannot be otherwise shown to be the case; nor can it be shown how the deviations came into the supposed text-book.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Act 7:2-53 . On the speech of Stephen , see Krause, Comm. in hist, et orat. Steph. , Gott. 1786; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. consilio , Tub. 1829, and his Paulus , p. 42 ff.; Luger, b. Zweck, Inhalt u. Eigenthmlichk. der Rede des Steph. , Lbeck 1838; Lange in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 725 ff., and apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 84 ff.; Thiersch, de Stephani orat. , Marb. 1849. Comp. his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 85 ff.; Rauch in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 352 ff.; F.Nitzsch in the same, 1860, p. 479 ff.; Senn in the Evang. Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche , 1859, p. 311 ff.

This speech bears in its contents and tone the impress of its being original . For the long and somewhat prolix historical narrative, Act 7:2-47 , in which the rhetorical character remains so much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible throughout only indirectly, cannot so peculiar and apparently even irrelevant to the situation is much of its contents [190] be merely put into the mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come from his own mouth. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired information, or from a quite independent ideal point of view, then either the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in Act 7:1 ; the striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the smallest portion (Act 7:48-53 ), would be more diffused over the whole, and the historical mistakes which have nothing surprising in them in the case of a discourse delivered on the spur of the moment would hardly occur.

But how is the authentic reproduction of the discourse , which must in the main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally (Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown (Riehm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., conjectures: by Saul ). It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand-writing to the public life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given, if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himself, and preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with the whole spirit of the apostolic age and with Act 6:12 , it only remains as the most natural expedient: to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even by the purpose of placing it on record, as the authentic source; so that, immediately after the tragical termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and afterwards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents, and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, remove any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up by the memory. As regards the person of the reporter, no definite conjectures are to be ventured on (Olshausen, e.g. , refers to Act 6:7 ; Luger and Baumgarten, to the intervention of Saul ); and only this much is to be assumed as probable, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christian (perhaps a secret Christian in the Sanhedrim itself), a view favoured by the diffusion, which we must assume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that Act 7:54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted at Act 7:53 , and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source. With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict; with regard to which, however, especially as they are based in part on traditions not found in the O. T., it must remain undetermined how far they are attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events, these historical mistakes of the speech form a strong proof in what an unaltered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been preserved from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down.

From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand its originality , namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as correct in substance , and verbal only so far, as setting aside the literary share, not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it into its present shape it was possible and natural for an intentional exertion of the memory to retain not only the style and tone of the discourse on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Definitions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. According to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, “at the foundation of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefinite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought;” the exact recollection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable; the artificial plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration; the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the Jews to Christianity; the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is historically improbable, etc.; Stephen is “the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of the Gentiles.” See in opposition to Baur, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 ff. Bruno Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism: “The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen.”

[190] Comp. Calvin: “Stephani responsio prima specie absurda et inepta videri posset.”

Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the relation of the contents to the points of complaint contained in Act 6:13-14 . Among the older interpreters the most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza, and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, without any attempt to enter into and grasp the unity of the speech the opinion of Grotius is to be noted: that Stephen wished indirectly, in a historical way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the call of the Gentiles. [191] But the very supposition, that the teaching of the call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbitrary; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill chosen by him, seeing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish people that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often committed, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indicated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen give a defence of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers; as well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man acceptable to God; that, on the contrary, without a moral conversion of the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds that Stephen narrates the history of the O. T. so much at length, just to show the Jews that he believed in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the national history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history itself fitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their minds the circumstance that the Jewish people, in all stages of their development and of the divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, consequently, it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once more disobedient . Yet Olshausen himself does not profess to look upon this reference of the speech as “with definite purpose aimed at.” In a more exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has laid down as the leading thought: “ Great and extraordinary as were the benefits which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally ungrateful in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first the disposition of that people .” Comp. already Bengel: “Vos autem semper mali fuistis,” etc. In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised , and that in such a way that the very building of the temple itself was meant to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people, a point of view which is foreign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would indeed in itself be unholy and impious (2Sa 7:13 ; 1Ki 5:5 ; 1Ki 6:12 ; 1Ch 18:12 ); comp. on Act 7:49-50 . With reason, Luger (who yet goes too far in the references of details), Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch have adhered to the historical standpoint given in Act 6:13-14 , and kept strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech (comp. also de Wette); along with which, however, Thiersch and Baumgarten not without manifold caprice exaggerate, in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and allegorical application of them (by which they were to serve as a mirror to the present) as designed by him, [192] as is also done in the Erlang. Zeitschr. 1859, p. 311 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the meritoriousness of the temple-worship and of the works of the law , inasmuch as it lays stress, on the contrary, upon God’s free and unmerited grace and election (a similar view was already held by Calvin); but to this there remains the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point (the non-meritorious nature of grace and election) is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in Act 6:14 was true (see, against this, on Act 6:13 ), inasmuch as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at Act 6:14 .

But if the assertion in Act 6:14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exposing the groundlessness of the charges brought against him, and the true reason for which he was persecuted . And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive character (comp. the appropriate remarks of F. Nitzsch), at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and vehemently; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges, was to him the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper theme is to be found in Act 7:51-52 , and the contents and course of the speech may be indicated somewhat as follows: I stand here accused and persecuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the law and of the temple, but in consequence of that spirit of resistance to God and His messengers, which YOU, according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and continue to exhibit . Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets history speak, and that with all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won the assembly to reflection. [193] He commences with the divine guidance of the common ancestor , and comes to the patriarchs; but even in their case that refractoriness was apparent through the envy toward Joseph , who yet was destined to be the deliverer of the family. But, at special length, in accordance with the aim of his defence, he is obliged to dwell upon Moses , in whose history, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance and rejection appeared (Act 7:27 f., Act 7:39 ff.), although he was the mediator of God for the deliverance of His people, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (Act 7:44 ff.). But hardly has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (Act 7:48-50 ), than (2) there now breaks forth a most direct attack , no longer to be restrained, upon his hostile judges (Act 7:51 ff.), and that with a bold reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from the previous historical representation, and now receives merely its most unveiled expression. [194] This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry; whereupon Stephen breaks off in the mid-current of his speech, [195] and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Him whom he sees standing at the right hand of God.

[191] Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who considers the speech, as respects the chief object aimed at, as a preparation for Act 28:25 ff.

[192] Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, even in the very command of God to Abraham to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be involved the application: “To us also, to whom God in Christ has appeared, there has been a command to go out from our kindred.” In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed, wishes to indicate: So will the race of oppressors, before whom he stood, end like Pharaoh and his host, and the liberated church will then celebrate its new independent worship. In the envy of Joseph’s brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it is indicated that Christ also was from envy delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that God had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies the affliction and spiritual famine of the hostile Jews, who, however, would at length (ver. 13), after the conversion of the Gentiles, acknowledge Him whom they had rejected. Moses’ birth at the period of the severest oppression, points to the birth of Christ at the period of the census. Moses’ second appearance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere occurring) second appearance of Christ, which would have as its consequence the restoration of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the high priest in the judgment-hall, etc. According to Luger, the speech has the three main thoughts; (1) That the law is not a thing rounded off in itself, but something added to the promise, and bearing even in itself a new promise; (2) That the temple is not exclusively the holy place, but only stands in the rank of holy places, by which a perfecting of the temple is prefigured; (3) That from the rejection of Jesus no argument can be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed, the ambassadors of God in all stages of revelation had been reviled. These three main thoughts are not treated one after the other, but one within the other, on the thread of sacred history; hence the form of repetition very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18, 26, etc.).

[193] The more fully, and without confining himself to what was directly necessary for his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical representation, the more might he, on account of the national love for the sacred history, and in accordance with O. T. examples (Exo 20:5 ff.; Deu 23:2 ff.), expect the eager and concentrated interest of his hearers, and perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing of their judgment.

[194] We may not ask wherefore Stephen has not carried the history farther than to the time of Solomon. Vv. 51, 52 include in themselves the whole tragic summary of the later history .

[195] What Stephen would still have said or left unsaid, if he had spoken further, cannot be ascertained. But the speech is broken off ; with ver. 53 he had just entered on a new stream of reproaches. And certainly he would still have added a prophetic threatening of punishment , as well as possibly, also, the summons to repentance .

Very different judgments have been formed concerning the value of the speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised and appreciated. Even Erasmus ( ad Act 7:51 ) gave it as his opinion, that there were many things in it “ quae non ita multum pertinere videantur ad id quod instituit .” He, in saying so, points to the interruption after Act 7:53 . Recently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully condemned it as “a compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical purpose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasticism ever invented.” Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowledged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse, as opposed to the hostile accusations, a praise which, doubtless, is intended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly characterizes the speech as complete in its kind; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle, and in this respect also it is a “documentum Spiritus pretiosum,” Bengel.

As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he were a Hellenist (which must be left undecided), this forms no reason why he should not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew before the supreme council. Nor does the partial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the speech was delivered in Greek; it is sufficient to set down this phenomenon to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew, whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already Greek.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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 50:24-25Gen 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.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

Ver. 2. The God of glory ] Before whom seraphims (those heavenly salamanders) clap their two wings, as a double scarf, on their faces, as not able to bear his brightness, Isa 6:2 ; or as men are wont to clap their hands on their eyes, in a sudden flash of lightning. Sol reliqua sidera occultat, quibus et lumen suum faenerat, saith Pliny, ii. 6.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 53: ] STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind, (1) that the general character of it is apologetic , referring to the charge made against him: but (2) that in this apology, forgetting himself in the vast subject which he is vindicating, he every where mixes in the polemic and didactic element. A general synopsis of it may be thus given: (1) He shews ( 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? but see note, Act 7:51 ) he bursts forth into a holy vehemence of invective against their rejection of God, which provokes his tumultuary expulsion from the council, and execution. (2) But simultaneously and parallel with this apologetic procedure, he also proceeds didactically , shewing 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. And (3) even more remarkably still 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 apologetic and didactic, in Act 7:51-53 .

That other connected purposes have been discovered in the speech, as e.g. that so ably followed out by Chrys. Hom. xv. xvii. (similarly Grot. and Calv.), of shewing that the covenant and promises were before the law , and sacrifice and the law before the temple , is to be attributed to the wonderful depth of words uttered like these under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, presenting to us, from whichever side they are viewed, new and inimitable hues of heavenly wisdom. Many of these will be brought out as we advance.

The question, from what probable source Luke derived his report of this speech , so peculiar in its character and citations as to bear, even to the most prejudiced, decisive evidence of authenticity, can be only conjecturally answered: but in this case the conjecture can hardly be wrong. I have discussed the point in the Prolegg. to this vol. ch. i. ii. 12 (a). Another question has been, in what language the speech was delivered. (1) It is a hardly disputable inference from ch. Act 6:9 , that Stephen was a Hellenist: (2) his citations and quasicitations for the most part agree with the LXX version. Hence it seems most probable that he spoke in Greek , which was almost universally understood in Jerusalem. If he spoke in Hebrew, (Syro-Chaldaic), then either those passages where the LXX varies from the Hebrew text (see below) must owe their insertion in that shape to some Greek narrator or to Luke himself , or Stephen must have, in speaking, translated them, thus varying , into Hebrew: either supposition being in the highest degree improbable.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

2. . . . . ] So Paul, ch. Act 22:1 , before a mixed assembly of Jews. The . . would embrace all: the . would be a title of respect to the members of the Sanhedrim, in this case , but hardly in ch. Act 22:1 .

. ] Not = , but the God of (i.e. who possesses and manifests Himself by) Glory , viz. the Shechinah, see Exo 24:16-17 , and Act 7:55 .

The words decide nothing as to Stephen’s genuine Hebrew extraction. Any Jew would thus speak.

. . .] This was the Jewish tradition, though not asserted in Genesis. Thus Philo (de Abrah. 15 end, vol. ii. p. 12), having paraphrased the divine command, says, . But he accurately distinguishes between the which he obeyed in leaving Chalda, and the afterwards, adding a reason after his manner, why God could not be seen nor apprehended by him while he was yet and an astrologer. The fact of his having left Ur by some divine intimation is plainly stated in Gen 15:7 , and referred to in Neh 9:7 . It was surely both natural and allowable to express this first command in the well-known words of the second. But we can hardly suppose that Stephen adopted the pluperfect rendering of in Gen 12:1 , as the LXX has . (Josephus, ordinarily cited as relating the same tradition, throws, as he often does, the whole history into confusion, saying, it is true, Antt. i. 7. 1, . , but omitting entirely the sojourn in Haran, and connecting the migration with an outbreak of the Chaldans against him for teaching the worship of the true God.)

] So the LXX for , Gen 11:31 , &c.; 4 Kings Act 19:12 ; Eze 27:23 , , Herodian iv. 13 (Ptol. v. 18. 12. Strabo, xvi. p. 747), ‘Carras cde Crassi nobiles,’ Plin. Act 7:24 , ‘Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carras,’ Lucan i. 104. It lay on an ancient road, in a large plain surrounded by mountains; it was still a great city in the days of the Arabian caliphs. See Winer, Realw.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 7:2 . , cf. St. Paul’s address, Act 22:1 , and also note on Act 23:1 . On St. Stephen’s speech see additional note at the end of chapter. : lit [199] , “the God of the glory,” i.e. , the glory peculiar to Him, not simply , a reference to the Shechinah, Exo 24:16-17 , Psa 29:3 , Isa 6:3 , and in the N.T. cf. 1Co 2:8 , and Jas 2:1 (Joh 1:14 ). The appearances to Abraham and Moses were similar to those later ones to which the term Shechinah was applied. Such words were in themselves an answer to the charge of blasphemy; but Stephen proceeds to show that this same God who dwelt in the Tabernacle was not confined to it, but that He appeared to Abraham in a distant heathen land. : there was therefore no need of a Temple that God might appear to His own (Chrys., Hom. , xv.; see Blass, in loco ). : emphatic, cf. Act 7:19 ; Act 7:38-39 ; Act 7:44-45 ; St. Stephen thus closely associates himself with his hearers. Wetstein comments: “Stephanus ergo non fuit proselytus, sed Judus natus,” but it would seem from Wetstein himself that a proselyte might call Abraham father; cf. his comment on Luk 1:73 , and cf. Sir 44:21 ; Speaker’s Commentary , “Apocrypha,” vol. ii.; see also Lumby’s note, in loco , and cf. Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. ii., p. 326, note, E.T. : a difficulty at once arises in comparing this statement with the Book of Genesis. Here the call of Abraham is said to have come to him before he dwelt in Haran, but in Gen 12:1 , after he removed thither. But, at the same time Gen 15:7 , cf. Jos 24:3 , Neh 9:7 , distinctly intimates that Abraham left “Ur of the Chaldees” (see “Abraham,” Hastings’ B.D., p. 14, and Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine , pp. 166 169, as to its site) in accordance with the choice and guidance of God. St. Stephen applies the language of what we may describe as the second to the first call, and in so doing he was really following on the lines of Jewish literature, e.g. , Philo, De Abrah. , ii., 11, 16, Mang., paraphrases the divine counsel, and then adds . Moreover the manner of St. Stephen’s quotation seems to mark the difference between the call in Ur and the call in Haran (R.V., not Charran, Greek form, as in A.V.). In Gen 12:1 we have the call to Abraham in Haran given as follows: . But the call in Ur, according to St. Stephen’s wording, is one which did not involve the sacrifice of his family, for Abraham was accompanied by them to Haran, and so the clause . . . is omitted because inappropriate. Of course if we omit before (see critical notes), St. Stephen’s words become more suitable still to the position of Abraham in Ur, for we should then translate the words, “from thy land and the land of thy kindred” (Rendall, cf. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ). St. Stephen may naturally have referred back to Abraham’s first migration from Ur to Haran, as desiring to emphasise more plainly the fact that since the call of God came to him before he had taken even the first step towards the Holy Land by settling in Haran, that divine revelation was evidently not bound up with any one spot, however holy. , Gen 11:31 ; Gen 12:5 ; Gen 27:43 , LXX, in the old language of Chaldea = road (see Sayce, u. s. , pp. 166, 167, and “Haran” Hastings’ B.D., and B.D. 2 , i. (Pinches)), in Mesopotamia; little doubt that it should be identified with the Carr of the Greeks and Romans, near the scene of the defeat of Crassus by the Parthians, B.C. 53, and of his death, Lucan, i., 104; Pliny, N.H., v., 24; Strabo, xvi., p. 747. In the fourth century Carr was the seat of a Christian bishopric, with a magnificent cathedral. It is remarkable that the people of the place retained until a late date the Chaldean language and the worship of the Chaldean deities, B.D. 2 , “Haran,” and see Hamburger, Real-Encyclopdie des Judentums , i., 4, p. 499, and references cited by him for identification with Carr ( cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 57).

[199] literal, literally.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Men. App-123. Compare Act 1:11.

God. App-98.

glory. See p. 1511. This is the genitive of character. App-17. Compare Psa 29:3, and note the seven other similar expressions, “the God of comfort” (Rom 15:5. 2Co 1:3), “hope” (Rom 15:13), “love” (2Co 13:11), “patience” (Rom 15:5), “peace” (Rom 15:33, &c), “all grace” (1Pe 5:10), and “truth” (Deu 32:4, &c).

appeared unto = was seen by. Greek. optomai. App-106.

dwelt = settled. Greek. katoikeo. See note on Act 2:6.

Charran = Haran (Gen 11:31).

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2-53:] STEPHENS DEFENCE. In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind, (1) that the general character of it is apologetic, referring to the charge made against him: but (2) that in this apology, forgetting himself in the vast subject which he is vindicating, he every where mixes in the polemic and didactic element. A general synopsis of it may be thus given: (1) He shews (apologetically) that, so far from dishonouring Moses or God, he believes and holds in mind Gods dealings with Abraham and Moses, and grounds upon them his preaching; that, so far from dishonouring the temple, he bears in mind its history and the sayings of the prophets respecting it; and he is proceeding,-when (interrupted by their murmurs or inattention? but see note, Act 7:51) he bursts forth into a holy vehemence of invective against their rejection of God, which provokes his tumultuary expulsion from the council, and execution. (2) But simultaneously and parallel with this apologetic procedure, he also proceeds didactically, shewing them that a future Prophet was pointed out by Moses as the final Lawgiver of Gods people,-that the Most High had revealed His spiritual and heavenly nature by the prophets, and did not dwell in temples made with hands. And (3) even more remarkably still 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 apologetic and didactic, in Act 7:51-53.

That other connected purposes have been discovered in the speech, as e.g. that so ably followed out by Chrys. Hom. xv.-xvii. (similarly Grot. and Calv.), of shewing that the covenant and promises were before the law, and sacrifice and the law before the temple,-is to be attributed to the wonderful depth of words uttered like these under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, presenting to us, from whichever side they are viewed, new and inimitable hues of heavenly wisdom. Many of these will be brought out as we advance.

The question, from what probable source Luke derived his report of this speech, so peculiar in its character and citations as to bear, even to the most prejudiced, decisive evidence of authenticity, can be only conjecturally answered: but in this case the conjecture can hardly be wrong. I have discussed the point in the Prolegg. to this vol. ch. i. ii. 12 (a). Another question has been, in what language the speech was delivered. (1) It is a hardly disputable inference from ch. Act 6:9, that Stephen was a Hellenist: (2) his citations and quasicitations for the most part agree with the LXX version. Hence it seems most probable that he spoke in Greek, which was almost universally understood in Jerusalem. If he spoke in Hebrew, (Syro-Chaldaic), then either those passages where the LXX varies from the Hebrew text (see below) must owe their insertion in that shape to some Greek narrator or to Luke himself,-or Stephen must have, in speaking, translated them, thus varying, into Hebrew: either supposition being in the highest degree improbable.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 7:2. , brethren and fathers) Stephen, being a young man, addresses them according to their different ages.- , the God of glory) The sum of the Divine praise. Glory is the Divinity manifest. This magnificent, appellation implies that Abraham was indebted to GOD for both himself wholly, and his posterity, and the land and all the blessings promised and performed to himself and his posterity, and this without anything on the credit side of the account.-, appeared) as the GOD of glory exhibited Himself to be seen.- , to our father) Thence it was that this benefit appertained also to the offspring of Abraham.- , before that) comp. Act 7:4, at the end.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Men: Act 22:1, Act 23:7

The God: Psa 24:7, Psa 24:10, Psa 29:3, Isa 6:3, Mat 6:13, Luk 2:14, Joh 1:14, Joh 12:41, 2Co 4:4-6, Tit 2:13,*Gr: Heb 1:3, Rev 4:11, Rev 5:12, Rev 5:13

appeared: Gen 12:1, Neh 9:7, Isa 51:2

when: Jos 24:2

Charran: Gen 11:31, Gen 12:5, Gen 29:4, Haran

Reciprocal: Gen 11:28 – Ur Gen 15:7 – brought Gen 18:1 – appeared Gen 24:8 – only Gen 28:10 – General Gen 35:9 – General Exo 4:5 – the Lord Jos 24:3 – I took 1Sa 30:23 – my brethren Isa 33:21 – the glorious Isa 37:12 – Haran Mal 2:10 – all Luk 12:12 – General Act 1:16 – Men Act 2:9 – Mesopotamia Act 2:14 – hearken Act 13:15 – Ye men Act 13:17 – God Act 15:13 – Men 1Co 2:8 – the Lord Eph 1:17 – the Father Heb 11:8 – Abraham Jam 2:5 – Hearken Jam 2:21 – Abraham

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2

Act 7:2. From this verse through verse 50 is Stephen’s answer to the question put to him by the high priest. A simple denial of the accusations would have been the whole truth, but Stephen’s purpose was to give the entire historical background of the issue at stake; not only to show their charges to be false, but also to present a basis of truths and facts for the conclusion he intended to draw in their hearing. We shall see that when all this was done, it showed up these false accusers to be really the ones who could justly be charged with the things they maliciously said against him. The speech will consist of the history that began with Abraham and ended with Solomon. In addition to Stephen’s principal reason for reciting these historical matters, I shall comment on the verses in their order because of their general interest. Fathers is used in the sense of respect for them as being among the older members of the Jewish nation, and hence those who should be respectfully interested in the history of their race. Before he dwelt in Charran (Haran). Gen 12:1 says that God had said for Abraham to make this move, even before the command stated in that verse, and that is the reason for Stephen’s phrase underlined in this place.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 7:2. The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham. That is, this God whose peculiar characteristic in the eyes of the Hebrew people was that visible shining brightness, that outward expression of majesty, the celestial splendour, which as a pillar of fire guided the desert wanderings, which as the Shekinah rested on the mercy-seat of the ark of the covenant in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. Paul speaks of this glory as one of the peculiar distinctions with which God honoured His own peculiar people (see Rom 9:14). It was the God whose visible symbol was that glory so well known by every child of Israel, who appeared to Abraham, the father of the race.

When he was in Mesopotamia. Ur of the Chaldees, where Abraham first resided (Gen 11:28), lay probably in the extreme north of Mesopotamia, near the sources of the Tigris.

Before be dwelt in Charran. In the Hebrew text, Haran; LXX., Charran. The Carrhae of the Latin writers, the scene of the disastrous defeat of the Triumvir Crassus, B.C. 51 (Lucan, i. 104; Plin. v. 24).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

2-4. We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his main theme. (2) And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in which you now dwell.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

7:2 {2} And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of {a} glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in {b} Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

(2) Steven witnesses to the Jews that he acknowledges the true fathers, and the only true God, and more than this shows this that these are more ancient than the temple and all the temple service appointed by the Law, and therefore they ought to lay another foundation of true religion, that is to say, the free covenant that God made with the fathers.

(a) The mighty God full of glory and majesty.

(b) When he says afterwards in Act 7:4 that Abraham came out of Chaldea, it is evident that Mesopotamia contained Chaldea which was near to it, and bordered upon it; and so writes Plinius, book 6, chap. 27.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

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. Act 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." [Note: Neil, 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 (Act 7:2), and it closes with mention of the glory of God (Act 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 (Act 7:2-16) deals with Israel’s patriarchal period and refutes the charge of blaspheming God (Act 6:11). The second major section (Act 7:17-43) deals with Moses and the Law and responds to the charge of blaspheming Moses (Act 6:11) and speaking against the Law (Act 6:13). The third section (Act 7:44-50) deals with the temple and responds to the charge of speaking against the temple (Act 6:13) and saying that Jesus would destroy the temple and alter Jewish customs (Act 6:14). Stephen then climaxed his address with an indictment of his hard-hearted hearers (Act 7:51-53). Longenecker believed Stephen’s main subjects were the land (Act 7:2-36), the Law (Act 7:37-43), and the temple (Act 7:44-50), plus a concluding indictment (Act 7:51-53). [Note: 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." [Note: 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." [Note: Toussaint, "Acts," p. 369. Italics omitted.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Stephen’s view of God 7:2-16

The false witnesses had accused Stephen of blaspheming God (Act 6:11). He proceeded to show the Sanhedrin that his view of God was absolutely orthodox. However in relating Israel’s history during the patriarchal period, he mentioned things about God and the patriarchs that his hearers needed to reconsider.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The Abrahamic Covenant 7:2-8

Stephen began his defense by going back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, and to the Abrahamic Covenant, God’s foundational promises to the Jews.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Stephen called for the Sanhedrin’s attention, addressing his hearers respectfully as "brethren and fathers" (cf. Act 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 Psa 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. Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7). Gen 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 Gen 12:1. [Note: 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. [Note: Rackham, pp. 99-102. See Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 378-82, for suggested solutions to problems in Act 7:4; Act 7:14; Act 7:16; Act 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 Gen 15:7 as implying Abraham’s initial call to leave Ur. [Note: 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.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)