Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:16
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.
16. and were carried over into Sychem, &c.] This Sychem is the Old Test. Shechem. The oldest authorities give for the latter part of the verse “ of the sons of Emmor in Shechem.”
The statement in this verse appears incapable of being reconciled with the record of the Old Testament There we find (Gen 49:30) that Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre (i.e. Hebron), from Ephron the Hittite. This is there spoken of as the general burial-place of the family; there were buried Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob’s wife Leah. And of Jacob we read (Gen 33:19), “he bought a parcel of a field where he had spread his tent, at the Hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father.” We are not told that this was for a burial-place, and it is rather to be judged that it was not so, because it is added “he erected there an altar.” Moreover it is in Machpelah that Jacob desires to be buried (Gen 47:30; Gen 49:30) and is buried (Gen 50:13). We have seen (note on Gen 50:5) that “the place of Shechem” was one of the resting-places of Abraham when he came first into Canaan, and that probably he bought a possession there, for he built an altar. The bones of Joseph were laid in Shechem (Jos 24:32). There were two burial-places connected with the patriarchal families. In the report of Stephen’s speech we find that Abraham is said to have bought what Jacob really purchased, but there may also have been land purchased by Abraham “in the place of Shechem.” We have only to suppose that in his speech Stephen, speaking of the burial of the whole family, mentioned, in accordance with the tradition of Josephus, the burial of the fathers in Hebron, which Abraham bought, and noticed the laying of Joseph’s bones at Shechem which Jacob bought, and that into the report of what he said a confusion has been introduced by the insertion of Abraham’s name for Jacob’s in the abbreviated narrative. We have pointed out in several places that the speeches recorded can be no more than abstracts of what was said, and the degree of inaccuracy here apparent might readily be imported in the formation of such an abstract, and yet the original speech have correctly reported all the traditions.
Stephen dwells on “Shechem” in the same way as before he had dwelt on “Egypt,” to mark that in the ancient days other places were held in reverence by the chosen people, and they served God there, though at the time when he was speaking Shechem was the home of their enemies the Samaritans.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Act 7:16-17
But when the time of the promise drew nigh.
The fidelity of God to His promises
What a faithful God! He does not forget His promise, but fulfils it even long after the death of the man. Mark this, thou disheartened teacher: thou mayest not see the use of this thy work, and thou mayest in the meantime with Abraham fall asleep; yet God will fulfil His promise after thy death. (Apostolic Pastor.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. And were carried over to Sychem] “It is said, Ge 50:13, that Jacob was buried in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre. And in Jos 24:32, and Ex 13:19, it is said that the bones of Joseph were carried out of Egypt by the Israelites, and buried in Shechem, which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem. As for the eleven brethren of Joseph, we are told by Josephus, Ant. lib. ii. cap. 8. sect. 2, that they were buried in Hebron, where their father had been buried. But, since the books of the Old Testament say nothing about this, the authority of Stephen (or of Luke here) for their being buried in Sychem is at least as good as that of Josephus for their being buried in Hebron.”-Bp. Pearce.
We have the uniform consent of the Jewish writers that all the patriarchs were brought out of Egypt, and buried in Canaan, but none, except Stephen, mentions their being buried in Sychem. As Sychem belonged to the Samaritans, probably the Jews thought it too great an honour for that people to possess the bones of the patriarchs; and therefore have carefully avoided making any mention of it. This is Dr. Lightfoot’s conjecture; and it is as probable as any other.
That Abraham bought for a sum of money] Two accounts seem here to be confounded:
1. The purchase made by Abraham of the cave and field of Ephron, which was in the field of Machpelah: this purchase was made from the children of Heth, Ge 23:3, Ge 23:10, Ge 23:17.
2. The purchase made by Jacob, from the sons of Hamor or Emmor, of a sepulchre in which the bones of Joseph were laid: this was in Sychem or Shechem, Ge 33:19; Jos 24:32.
The word Abraham, therefore, in this place, is certainly a mistake; and the word Jacob, which some have supplied, is doubtless more proper. Bp. Pearce supposes that Luke originally wrote, , which he bought for a sum of money: i.e. which Jacob bought, who is the last person, of the singular number, spoken of in the preceding verse. Those who saw that the word , bought, had no nominative case joined to it, and did not know where to find the proper one, seem to have inserted , Abraham, in the text, for that purpose, without sufficiently attending to the different circumstances of his purchase from that of Jacob’s.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That they carried Joseph to bury him in Canaan, according to the oath he made them take, Gen 1:25, is certain; and that this was desired to be done for him out of faith, Heb 11:22; but is not so certain (unless this place be so understood) that the rest of the patriarchs were so translated after their death: yet it is very likely; for, first: They had as much reason to desire it as Joseph had; they believed the same promises, and had an interest in that land as well as he. Secondly: Their posterity bore the same respect unto them that Josephs family did to him. Thirdly: It seems alike reasonable, that none of those twelve heirs to the land of Canaan should be left in the land of bondage. This place is acknowledged to be most difficult, and the difficulties are better not to be mentioned than ill solved, which the nature of these notes (not to mention other reasons) might occasion: whosoever will consider the intended shortness of the story, with the usual idioms of the Hebrew language, from which it was deduced, may take this as a paraphrase upon the whole verse: And Jacob and our fathers died, and were removed to Sychem, and were laid in sepulchres, in that which Abraham bought for money, and in that which was bought of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem. Dr. Lightfoot, in locum.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And were carried over into Sichem,…. The Syriac version reads in the singular number, “and he was translated into Sichem, and laid”, c. as if this was said of Jacob only, whereas he is not spoken of at all, only the fathers, the twelve patriarchs for Jacob, though he was carried out of Egypt, he was not buried in Sichem, but in the cave of Machpelah, Ge 50:13. But Joseph and the rest of the patriarchs, who died in Egypt, when the children of Israel came out from thence, they brought their bones along with them, and buried them in Sichem: of the burial of Joseph there, there is no doubt, since it is expressly affirmed in Jos 24:32 and that the rest of the patriarchs were buried there, and not in Hebron, as Josephus asserts x, may be concluded from hence; because in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, there are never mentioned more in Jewish writers y, than these four couple; Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah; from whence, they say, Hebron was called Kirjath Arba, the city of four; as also, because it is the general consent of the Jews; and if they had not agreed in it, or said nothing about it, the thing is natural to suppose, that the children of Israel brought the bones of all the patriarchs out of Egypt, along with Joseph’s z; and since they buried the bones of Joseph in Sichem, it is most reasonable to believe, that the rest were buried there likewise; though it must be owned, that there is an entire silence about them, even when the sepulchre of Joseph is taken notice of: so R. Benjamin speaking of the Samaritans says a,
“among them is the sepulchre of Joseph the righteous, the son of Jacob our father, on whom be peace, as it is said, Jos 24:32.”
And says another of their writers b,
“from Sichem about a sabbath day’s journey, in a village, called Belata, there Joseph the just was buried;”
but of the rest, no mention is made:
and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem; the last clause, the father “of Sichem”, is left out in the Syriac version; and the Alexandrian copy reads it, “in Sichem”; as if it was the name of a place, and not of a man: the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, “the son of Sichem”; whereas it is certain, that Sichem was the son of Emmor, or Hamor, Ge 33:19 unless it can be thought there were two Sichems, one that was the father of Emmor, and another that was his son: but the great difficulty is, how the sepulchre in which the fathers were laid at Sichem, can be said to be bought by Abraham of the sons of Emmor, when what Abraham bought was the field and cave of Machpelah; and that not of the sons of Emmor, but of the sons of Heth, and of Ephron, the son of Zohar the Hitrite, Ge 23:16. Whereas the parcel of ground in Sichem, bought of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sichem, was bought by Jacob, Ge 33:19. Various things are suggested, to reconcile this; some think the word Abraham is an interpolation, and that it should be read, which he (Jacob) bought; but to support this, no copy can be produced: others observe, that it may be read, which he bought for Abraham; that is, which Jacob bought for Abraham and his seed, as a pledge of the inheritance of the whole land, promised unto him; others think that by Abraham is meant a son of Abraham, that is, Jacob; as children are sometimes called by their father’s name; as the Messiah is called David, and the like; but what best seems to remove the difficulty is, that the words refer to both places and purchases; to the field of Machpelah bought by Abraham, and to the parcel of field is Sichem bought by Jacob, of the sons of Emmor; for the words with the repetition of the phrase, “in the sepulchre”, may be read thus; “and were laid in the sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money”, and in the sepulchre (bought by Jacob) “of the sons of Emmor”, the father of Sichem; or the words may be rendered thus, “they were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought for a sum of money, besides” that “of the sons of Emmor”, the father “of Sichem”; namely, which Jacob bought, and in which Joseph was laid, Ge 33:19. And this agrees with Stephen’s account and design, in the preceding verse; he observes, that Jacob died in Egypt, and all the twelve patriarchs; and here he tells us how they were disposed of, and where they were buried, both Jacob and his sons; they were removed from Egypt, and brought into the land of Canaan; Jacob, he was laid in the cave of Machpelah, in the sepulchre Abraham bought of the children of Heth; and Joseph and his brethren, they were laid in the sepulchre at Sichem, which Jacob bought of the sons of Emmor: upon the whole, the charge of several errors brought by the c Jew against Stephen appears to be groundless; the sum this sepulchre was bought for was an hundred pieces of money, Ge 33:19.
x Antiqu. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 2. y T. Bab. Sota, fol. 13. 1. Cippi Heb. p. 4. R. Benjamin. Itinerar. p. 48, 49. z T. Bab. Sota, fol. 13. Bava Kama, fol. 92. 1. Maccot fol. 11. 1. & Gloss. in ib. Bereshit, fol. 89. 1. Sepher Jasher apud Gaulmin. not. in Vita Mosis, l. 2. c. 2. p. 287. a ltinerar. p. 39. b Cippi Heb. p. 34. c R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 63. p. 450, 451.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They were carried over unto Shechem ( ). First aorist passive of , only here in the N.T. in this sense of changing places. Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Ge 50:13). The O.T. does not say where the sons of Jacob were buried save that Joseph was buried in Shechem (Jos 24:32). Possibly only “our fathers” without Jacob is the subject of “were carried.”
Which Abraham bought ( ). Hackett is sure that our present text is wrong. Hort notes some sixty “primitive errors” in the critical text of the N.T. It is possible that this is also one. If “Jacob” is substituted for “Abraham,” the matter is cleared up. “It is quite as likely, judging a priori, that the word producing the error escaped from some early copyist as that so glaring an error was committed by Stephen” (Hackett). At any rate Abraham bought a burying-place, the cave of Machpelah, from Ephron the Hittite at Hebron (Ge 23:16), while Jacob bought a field from the sons of Hamor at Shechem (Gen 33:19; Josh 24:32). Abraham had built an altar at Shechem when he entered Canaan (Ge 12:6f.). It is possible, of course, that Abraham also bought the ground on which the altar stood.
In Shechem ( ). This is the reading of Aleph B C instead of the Textus Receptus which makes it “Hamar the father of Sichem.” “In Shechem” is the true reading.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And were carried into Sychem,” (kai metetethesan eis Suchem) “And were transferred (transported) into Sychem,” where Abraham had long before bought a burial place for his family, Gen 23:8-20.
2) “And laid in the sepulchre,” (kai etethesan en to mnemati) “And they were put or placed in a tomb,” in Sychem, in the cave of Machpelah, according to Jacob’s instructions before his death, Gen 49:30-33.
3) “That Abraham bought for a sum of money,” (ho onesato Abraham times arguriou) “Which Abraham bought for a price (or payment) of silver,” in amount of four hundred shekels, a value of 650 per shekel or $130.00, Gen 23:16-18.
4) “Of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem,” (para ton huion Emmor en Suchem) “From the sons of Emmor in (the territory of) Sychem.” It appears that some eighty years after Abraham purchased the field, Gen 23:4-20, that Jacob repurchased it from Hamor or (Emmor, Act 7:15-16; Gen 33:19, as a descendant of Heth who had apparently repossessed the field in which the burial cave was located. See also Joshua for the account of Joseph’s final burial.
Joseph’s bones, brought out of Egypt at the Exodus, were later buried in Shechem, on a parcel of ground purchased by Jacob for sacred purposes, Jos 24:32.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. Stephen saith, that the patriarchs were carried into the land of Canaan after they were dead. But Moses maketh mention only of the bones of Joseph, (Gen 1:13.) And Jos 24:32, it is reported, that the bones of Joseph were buried without making any mention of the rest. Some answer, that Moses speaketh of Joseph for honor’s sake, because he had given express commandment concerning his bones, which we cannot read to have been done of the rest. And, surely, when Jerome, in the pilgrimage of Paula, saith, that she came by Shechem, he saith that she saw there the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs; but in another place he maketh mention of Joseph’s grave only. And it may be that there were empty tombs (404) erected to the rest. I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses, as according to the old fame; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand. And whereas he saith afterward, they were laid in the sepulcher which Abraham had bought of the sons of Hemor, it is manifest that there is a fault [mistake] in the word Abraham. For Abraham had bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, (Gen 23:9,) to bury his wife Sarah in; but Joseph was buried in another place, to wit, in the field which his father Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore this place must be amended.
(404) “[ Κενοτάφια ],” ceonotaphs.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) And were carried over into Sychem.The words appear to include Jacob, who was buried not at Sychem, but Machpelah (Gen. 1:13). If we limit the verb to the patriarchs, which is in itself a tenable limitation, we are met by the fresh difficulty that the Old Testament contains no record of the burial of any of the Twelve Patriarchs, with the exception of Joseph, whose bones were laid, on the occupation of Canaan, in Shechem (Jos. 24:32); and Josephus states (Ant. iv. 8, 2) that they were buried at Hebron. This, however, only represents, at the best, a local tradition. In the time of Jerome (Ep. 86) the tombs of the Twelve Patriarchs were shown at Shechem, and this in its turn witnesses to a Samaritan tradition which continues to the present day (Palestine Exploration Report, Dec., 1877), and which Stephen, it may be, followed in preference to that of Juda. Looking to the probabilities of the case, it was likely that the example set by Joseph would be followed by the other tribes, and that as Shechem was far more prominent than Hebron, as the centre of the civil and religious life of Israel in the time of Joshua, that should have been chosen as the burial-place of his brethren rather than Machpelah. Looking, again, to the fact that one of Stephens companions, immediately after his death, goes to Samaria as a preacher, and that there are good grounds for believing that both had been previously connected with it (see Note on Act. 6:5), we may probably trace to this influence his adoption of the Samaritan version of the history. The hated Sychar (Sir. 1:26; see Note on Joh. 4:5) had, from Stephens point of view, a claim on the reverence of all true Israelites, and his assertion of that claim may well have been one of the causes of the bitterness with which his hearers listened to him.
That Abraham bought for a sum of money.Here we seem to come across a direct contradiction to the narrative of Genesis. The only recorded transaction in which Abraham appears as a buyer, was his purchase of the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23:16). The only recorded transaction in which the sons of Emmor, or Hamor, appear as sellers, was in Jacobs purchase of the field at Shechem (Gen. 33:19; Jos. 24:32). What we have seen above, however, prepares us for there having been a Samaritan tradition carrying the associations of Shechem to a remoter past. And, assuming such a tradition, there are significant facts in the patriarchal history of which it furnishes an explanation. (1) Jacob gives as a special inheritance to Joseph, one portion (in the Hebrew, one Shechem; in the LXX., Sikima) above his brethren, which he had taken out of the hands of the Amorites with his sword and his bow. Of that conquestas it is clear that the words cannot refer to the massacre connected with the story of Dinah, which Jacob had severely condemned (Gen. 34:30)the history contains no record, and to interpret the words as prophetic of future conquests is to strain them to a non-natural interpretation which they will hardly bear. Jacob did not come as an invader, nor had the time for thus taking possession of the whole land as yet arrived. The facts of the case suggest a special right claimed and asserted in regard to this one possession, and that right presupposes a previous purchase by some ancestor of Jacobsi.e., by Abraham. This being done and the right asserted, to make the portion larger, and perhaps as a measure of conciliation, there followed the subsequent purchase of Gen. 33:19. (2) Shechem was the earliest settlement of Abraham on his entrance into Canaan, and there he built an altar (Gen. 12:7). But the feeling of reverence for holy places, always strong in the Hebrew race, as seen, e.g., in the case of David and Araunah, would hardly permit a man of Abrahams wealth and princely nobleness to offer burnt-offerings to the Lord of that which had cost him nothing (2Sa. 24:24); nor would a devout worshipper be content to see the altar so consecrated in the possession of another, and so exposed to desecration. The building of an altar involved, almost of necessity, as in the case just cited, the purchase of the ground on which it stood. (3) The Samaritans had an immemorial tradition (adopted by Dean Stanley, Ffouikes, Grove, and others) that the sacrifice of Isaac took place on the mountain of Moriah (Gen. 22:2), or Gerizim, which commands the plain of Moreh (Gen. 12:6), or Shechem; and, without now discussing the evidence for or against the tradition, it almost involved of necessity the assumption that Abraham had already an altar there, and with it a consecrated field which he could call his own. (4) Another Samaritan tradition, it may be noted, connected Shechem with the sacrifice offered by Melchizedek. This is enough to show the extent of the claims which were made by the Samaritans on behalf of their sacred places, and, taken together with the statement referred to in the previous Note as to the tombs of the Patriarchs, leads us to the conclusion that Stephen, more or less influenced by his recent associations with them, adopted their traditions. This seems, at any rate, the most probable solution of the difficulty which the statement at first sight presents. To do this in Jerusalem, before the very Sanhedrin, the members of which had reviled our Lord as a Samaritan (Joh. 8:48), required a martyrs boldness, and, claiming as it did, a brotherhood for the hated Samaritans, the hereditary foes of Judah, had, we may believe, much to do with causing the fury that ended in his actual martyrdom. It may be added (1) that the manifest familiarity of St. Luke with Samaria and the Samaritans would dispose him to accept such a tradition without correction (see Introduction to St. Lukes Gospel); (2) that the Twelve, some of whom had sojourned for three days at Sychar (Joh. 4:43), were likely to have become acquainted with it, and to have been ignorant of the Hebron traditions; (3) that the well-known substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deu. 27:4, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, not less than their addition of a commandment to build an altar on Gerizim to the ten great laws of Exodus 20, shows a tendency to deal freely with the text and the facts of the Pentateuch, so as to support their own traditions as to their sacred places.
Of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.The insertion of the word father instead of son, which would be (as in Mat. 10:3; Luk. 3:23) the natural rendering of the Greek construction, must be looked on as betraying a wish on the part of the translators to meet the difficulty presented by the statement in Gen. 34:2, that Shechem was the son of Hamor the Hivite. It may be noted that it is the only English version that thus tampers with the textTyndale giving at Sychem; Wiclif, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Rhemish giving son of Sychem. A possible explanation of the apparent discrepancy may be found in the very probable assumption that Shechem may have been a quasi-hereditary name appearing in alternate generations. In this instance, however, textual criticism comes in to cut the knot. Many of the better MSS., including the Vatican and the Sinaitic, give the reading in Sychem, and so make the name apply to the place and not to a person.
With the exception of Act. 7:43, we have now come to the last of the difficulties, chronological, historical, or numerical, presented by St. Stephens speech. They have been approached by writers of different schools of thought in ways singularly, sometimes almost painfully, characteristic. On the one hand, there has been something like the eagerness of a partisan mustering all objections and anxious to secure an adverse verdict; on the other, there has been an almost hysterical alarm and indignation that such questions should be ever raised. Here the effort has, at least, been made to deal with each on its own merits, and not to force facts this way or that to meet a foregone conclusion. Should there be errors of transcription, of report, or even of memory in the record of St. Stephens speech, they need not shake the faith of those who have learnt to take a higher view of inspiration than that which depends upon the registers of genealogies or chronological tables. But it may be well also not to assume too hastily that men of average culture and information would be altogether ignorant of the facts which they narrate, and the sacred writings which have been the object of their continual study. And it may be urged that the appearance of seeming inaccuracies, which a moments reference to the Book of Genesis would have enabled the writer to correct, is, at any rate, evidence of faithfulness in his report of the speech which he thus reproduces.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Into Sychem Sychem is the Shechem or Sychar of Joh 4:5; and for a full account of the place and of Joseph’s tomb see our notes there.
Abraham bought of the sons of Emmor To make this correct history Jacob should be substituted for Abraham; for, according to Gen 33:19, it was Jacob who purchased the family tomb at Shechem. Far earlier indeed than this the venerable Abraham did make a somewhat similar purchase, namely, of the cave of Machpelah of the sons of Heth, wherein to bury Sarah his wife, of which see the interesting account in the twenty-third chapter of Genesis. We see no other plausible way among all the proposed expedients of sustaining the accuracy of Stephen but by supposing that in the earliest copies from Luke’s manuscript the word Abraham was by mistake inserted for Jacob, for which, however, there is no manuscript support. But for a mistake committed by Stephen the sacred historian himself could not be held responsible.
Dr. Wordsworth ingeniously argues that Emmor or Hamor was a hereditary princely name like Pharaoh and Candace; that Abraham in all probability had bought the same spot from an earlier Hamor, and that Jacob as matter of peace re-bought the same ground.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 7:16. And were carried over, &c. It is not improbable, that the bones of the other eleven patriarchs might be carried along with the bones of Joseph, when the children of Israel went out of Egypt, Exo 13:19 and be afterwards buried along with his bones, when Israel came into Canaan. There was the same reason for them to desire to be buried there, as there was for Joseph; that is, their firm belief, that God would in due time fulfil his promise, in giving Canaan unto Israel for a possession;
(Comp. Gen 50:25. Heb 11:22.) and accordingly some of the ancient Jews affirm that the bodies of the patriarchs were carried and buried along with Joseph’s; and St. Jerome asserts, that the twelve patriarchs were buried at Sychem. It seems, that St. Stephen, rapidly running over so many circumstances of history, had not leisure, nor was it needful where they were so well known, to recite them all distinctly. Therefore he here contracts into one, two different sepulchres, places and purchases, so as in the former history, to name the buyer, omitting the seller; in the latter, to name the seller, omitting the buyer. Abraham bought a burying-place of the children of Heth, Genesis 23. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Ha-mor. There Joseph was buried. We may observe here how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews; particularly when, in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the history, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer.The first land which these strangers, these patriarchs bought, was for a sepulchre. They sought for a country in heaven. Perhaps the whole sentence, Act 7:15-16 might be rendered thus: So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over to Shechem, and laid by the sons (that is, descendants) of Hamor the father of Shechem, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money. The reader will find much on this subject in Chais’s note on Gen 23:16. Houbigant on Gen 33:19. Biscoe’s Lectures, p. 607. Whitby, L’Enfant, Sir Norton Knatchbull, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 7:16 . ] namely, . . Incorrectly Kuinoel and Olshausen refer it only to the ; [202] whereas are named as the persons belonging to the same category, of whom the being dead is affirmed . Certainly Gen 49:30 (comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 7), according to which Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gen 23 ), is at variance with the statement . . But Stephen from whose memory in the hurry of an extemporary speech this statement escaped, and not the statement, that Joseph’s body was buried at Sychem (Jos 24:33 , comp. Gen 50:25 ) transfers the locality of the burial of Joseph not merely to his brethren (of whose burial-place the O. T. gives no information), but also to Jacob himself, in unconscious deviation, as respects the latter, from Gen 49:30 . Perhaps the Rabbinical tradition, that all the brethren of Joseph were also buried at Sychem (Lightf. and Wetst. in loc. ) was even then current, and thus more easily suggested to Stephen the error with respect to Jacob. It is, however, certain that Stephen has not followed an account deviating from this (Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 2), which transfers the burial of all the patriarchs to Hebron , although no special motive can be pointed out in the matter; and it is entirely arbitrary, with Kuinoel, to assume that he had wished thereby to convey the idea that the Samaritans, to whom, in his time, Sychem belonged, could not, as the possessors of the graves of the patriarchs, have been rejected by God.
.] which (formerly) Abraham bought . But according to Gen 33:19 , it was not Abraham, but Jacob , who purchased a piece of land from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. On the other hand, Abraham purchased from Ephron the field and burial-cave at Hebron (Gen 23 ). Consequently, Stephen has here evidently fallen into a mistake , and asserted of Abraham what historically applied to Jacob, being led into error by the fact that something similar was recorded of Abraham. If expositors had candidly admitted the mistake so easily possible in the hurry of the moment, they would have been relieved from all strange and forced expedients of an exegetical and critical nature, and would neither have assumed a purchase not mentioned at all in the O. T., nor (Flacius, Bengel, comp. Luger) a combining of two purchases (Genesis 23, 33) and two burials (Gen 50 ; Jos 24 ); nor (Beza, Bochart, Bauer in Philol. Thuc. Paul. p. 167, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), against all external and internal critical evidence, have asserted the obnoxious . to be spurious (comp. Calvin), either supplying as the subject to (Beza, Bochart), or taking as impersonal (“quod emtum erat,” Kuinoel); nor would ., with unprecedented arbitrariness, have been explained as used in a patronymic sense for Abrahamides, i.e. Jacobus (Glass, Fessel, Surenhusius, Krebs). Conjectural emendations are: (Clericus); (Cappellus). Other forced attempts at reconciliation may be seen in Grotius and Calovius.
] the father of Sychem . [203] The relationship is presupposed as well known .
] is later Greek; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 137 f.
.] the genitive of price: for a purchase-money consisting of silver. The LXX. (Gen 33:19 ) has (probably the name of a coin, see Bochart, Hieroz . I. p. 473 ff.; Gesenius, Thes. iii. p. 1241, s.v. ), for which Stephen has adopted a general expression, because the precise one was probably not present to his recollection.
[202] See also Hackett.
[203] Not the son of Sychem, as the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and others have it. See Gen 33:19 . Lachmann reads ., in accord doubtless with important witnesses, of which several have only ., but evidently an alteration arising from the opinion that was the city . The circumstance that in no other passage of the N. T. the genitive of relationship is to be explained by , must be regarded as purely accidental. Entirely similar are the passages where with female names is to be supplied, as Luk 24:10 . See generally, Winer, p. 178 f. [E. T. 237]. If filii were to be supplied, this would yield a fresh historical error; and not that quite another Hamor is meant than at Gen. l.c. (in opposition to Beelen).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16. ] , viz. , not the latter only, as Kuin., Olsh., and Wordsw., to evade part of the difficulty of the verse.
The facts, as related in the O. T., were these: Jacob, dying in Egypt, was ( Gen 50:13 ) taken into the land of Canaan, and buried in the cave of Machpelah, before Mamre (on the rest of the verse see below): Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken in a coffin ( Gen 50:26 ) at the Exodus ( Exo 13:19 ), and finally buried ( Jos 24:32 ) at Shechem. Of the burial of the other patriarchs the sacred text says nothing, but rather by the specification in Exo 13:19 , leaves it to be inferred that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus, Antt. ii. 8. 2, relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron , and adds, B. J. iv. 9. 7, ( Hebron ) , : the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have been buried in Sychem : and Jerome (Ep. ad Eustochium: Epitaph. Paul, 108 (27) 13, vol. i., p. 703) relating the pilgrimages of Paula to the sacred places, says: “transivit Sichem, atque inde divertens vidit duodecim Patriarcharum sepulchra.” These traditions probably Stephen followed; and, in haste or inadvertence, classed Jacob with the rest.
] The burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem , but ( Gen 23:3-20 ) at Hebron , and was bought of Ephron the Hittite . It was Jacob who ( Gen 33:19 ) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem , of the children of Hamor , Shechem’s father: and no mention is made of its being for a burying-place . The two incidents are certainly here confused : and no ingenuity of the Commentators has ever devised an escape from the inference. The mention of a few such attempts may suffice. (1) The omission of (Beza, Valck., Kuin., Schtt., al.) against all manuscript evidence (not excepting E, the reading of which, variously stated by Meyer and Tischendorf, has been ascertained by inspection), and against the construction also; for after , could hardly be the subject to : (2) rendering, against all grammar, while omitting , ‘emptum erat’ (Kuin.): (3) construing , Abrahamides , i.e. Jacob (Surenhus. al.): (4) that of Wordsworth, made up of omitting Jacob from the grammatical construction (see above); proving, from Jerome and Bede [45] (without any allusion to the passage of Josephus above cited!), that the other patriarchs were buried at Shechem: a priori reasons why Stephen should have chosen to bring forward Shechem and not Hebron; reasons (see Wordsw.’s note) not very creditable, if they existed: &c. &c.
[45] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
The fact of the mistake occurring where it does, will be far more instructive to the Christian student than the most ingenious solution of the difficulty could be, if it teaches him fearlessly and honestly to recognize the phnomena presented by the text of Scripture, instead of wresting them to suit a preconceived theory. I entirely agree with Wordsworth, that “there is nothing in these difficulties which invalidates the claims of St. Stephen to Inspiration,” any more than those expressions in Scripture “invalidate its inspiration,” which imply that the sun revolves round the earth. But as Wordsw. lives in days when men are no longer burnt for asserting that the earth moves, he surely might abstain from railing in such unmeasured terms (see his Acts, p. 35, Col 1 ) at those who in contending for common fairness and honesty find it necessary to carry somewhat further the same canon of reasonable interpretation. Humble searchers after divine truth will not be terrified by being charged with “assumption and conceit,” or being told that their exegesis can produce no result but “degeneracy, degradation, disbelief, and demoralization.” But they will deeply feel it to be their duty, to caution the student against all crooked and disingenuous ways of handling the word of God. “Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.”
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
carried over = removed. Greek. metatithemi. Only here; Gal 1:1, Gal 1:6. Heb 7:12; Heb 11:5, Heb 11:6. Jud 1:4.
Sychem = Shechem (Gen 50:5). See App-187.
sepulchre. Greek. mnema. See note on Act 2:29.
bought. Greek. oneomai. Only here.
of = from. Greek. para.
sons. Greek. huios. App-108.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] , viz. , not the latter only,-as Kuin., Olsh., and Wordsw., to evade part of the difficulty of the verse.
The facts, as related in the O. T., were these: Jacob, dying in Egypt, was (Gen 50:13) taken into the land of Canaan, and buried in the cave of Machpelah, before Mamre (on the rest of the verse see below): Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken in a coffin (Gen 50:26) at the Exodus (Exo 13:19), and finally buried (Jos 24:32) at Shechem. Of the burial of the other patriarchs the sacred text says nothing, but rather by the specification in Exo 13:19, leaves it to be inferred that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus, Antt. ii. 8. 2, relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron, and adds, B. J. iv. 9. 7, (Hebron) , :-the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have been buried in Sychem: and Jerome (Ep. ad Eustochium: Epitaph. Paul, 108 (27) 13, vol. i., p. 703) relating the pilgrimages of Paula to the sacred places, says: transivit Sichem, atque inde divertens vidit duodecim Patriarcharum sepulchra. These traditions probably Stephen followed; and, in haste or inadvertence, classed Jacob with the rest.
] The burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but (Gen 23:3-20) at Hebron, and was bought of Ephron the Hittite. It was Jacob who (Gen 33:19) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem, of the children of Hamor, Shechems father: and no mention is made of its being for a burying-place. The two incidents are certainly here confused: and no ingenuity of the Commentators has ever devised an escape from the inference. The mention of a few such attempts may suffice.-(1) The omission of (Beza, Valck., Kuin., Schtt., al.) against all manuscript evidence (not excepting E, the reading of which, variously stated by Meyer and Tischendorf, has been ascertained by inspection),-and against the construction also; for after , could hardly be the subject to :-(2) rendering, against all grammar, while omitting , emptum erat (Kuin.):-(3) construing , Abrahamides, i.e. Jacob (Surenhus. al.):-(4) that of Wordsworth, made up of-omitting Jacob from the grammatical construction (see above);-proving, from Jerome and Bede[45] (without any allusion to the passage of Josephus above cited!), that the other patriarchs were buried at Shechem:-a priori reasons why Stephen should have chosen to bring forward Shechem and not Hebron; reasons (see Wordsw.s note) not very creditable, if they existed: &c. &c.
[45] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
The fact of the mistake occurring where it does, will be far more instructive to the Christian student than the most ingenious solution of the difficulty could be, if it teaches him fearlessly and honestly to recognize the phnomena presented by the text of Scripture, instead of wresting them to suit a preconceived theory. I entirely agree with Wordsworth, that there is nothing in these difficulties which invalidates the claims of St. Stephen to Inspiration, any more than those expressions in Scripture invalidate its inspiration, which imply that the sun revolves round the earth. But as Wordsw. lives in days when men are no longer burnt for asserting that the earth moves, he surely might abstain from railing in such unmeasured terms (see his Acts, p. 35, Colossians 1) at those who in contending for common fairness and honesty find it necessary to carry somewhat further the same canon of reasonable interpretation. Humble searchers after divine truth will not be terrified by being charged with assumption and conceit, or being told that their exegesis can produce no result but degeneracy, degradation, disbelief, and demoralization. But they will deeply feel it to be their duty, to caution the student against all crooked and disingenuous ways of handling the word of God. Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 7:16. , and) We may give this paraphrase of the passage: Jacob died and our fathers (namely, Joseph); and (because, after the example of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, they wished to rest in the land of promise, Gen 50:13; Gen 50:25, for this reason) they were carried over into Sychem or Shechem (and into the sepulchre of Hebron, Gen 23:19), and were laid (in the parcel of ground at Shechem [Jos 24:32], and) in the sepulchre (of Hebron), which Abraham had bought (and Jacob) for a price in money (and a hundred lambs) from the sons of Emmor, (the father) of Sichem or Shechem (and from Ephron). For two most well known histories are intertwined with one another, having reference to a double purchase (examine well Genesis 23, 33), and to a double burial: Genesis 50 and Joshua 24. In this passage both histories require the omitted parts, by the force of the relatives, to be supplied mutually one from the other. The brevity which was best suited to the ardour of the Spirit gave Stephen just occasion, in the case of a fact so well known, to compress these details in the way he has done. Moreover there is to be added the consideration that, as Jacob was buried in the sepulchre of Hebron, and Joseph in the land of Shechem, so the rest of the fathers who died in Egypt, or (at least) some of them, are said to have been gathered to both of them. For Josephus, lib. ii. Ant. ch. iv., writes, that they were entombed at Hebron; Jerome, in Ep. ad Pammach. de opt. gen. int., informs us that their sepulchres existed even in his age at Shechem, and were wont to be visited by strangers. From which Franc. Junius, lib. i. Parall. 92, infers that some of them were buried in the one place, some in the other, according as seemed convenient to their posterity. Pererius, in Gen. fol. 672, thinks that they were carried over from Shechem to Hebron. And as it would have been too long for Stephen to have recounted these several details, he with admirable compendiousness has indicated the whole. Therefore the reading remains intact: nor is there need of the conjecture . Flaccius admirably observes on this passage: Stephen has no time, in going cursorily through so many histories, to narrate each in distinct detail: therefore he compresses into one two different sepulchres, places, and purchases, in such a way that, in the case of the former history, indeed, he names the true purchaser, omitting the seller: on the other hand, in the later history, he names the true seller, omitting the purchaser; as it were by a diameter joining two out of those four contracting parties [two buyers, Abraham and Jacob, and two sellers, Ephron and Emmor or Hamor. Stephen takes and joins Abraham, the first of the first pair, and Emmor of the second]. However much, therefore, the name of the purchaser may be emended, yet still it would not be true that Jacob was buried in Shechem. Abraham bought a place of sepulture from the sons of Heth, Genesis 23; Jacob was buried there, Genesis 49, 50 : Jacob purchased a field from the sons of Emmor or Hamor, Genesis 33; Joseph was buried there, Joshua 24. Here you have a type of those contracts, and may see how Stephen contracted the two purchases into one. So says the Illyrian (Illyricus). See also Glassius in respect to Ellipsis. In a similar way the same Stephen, a little before, in Act 7:7, contracted two prophecies, viz. that to Abraham and that to Moses, into one: Exo 3:12; Gen 15:16 : and in Act 7:9 he condensed into one word the selling of Joseph and his removal into Egypt: and below, in Act 7:43, he joins a saying of Amos and the departure to Babylon, out of Jeremiah. So in Act 7:24, A certain one (an Israelite) suffering wrong;-an Egyptian (inflicting the wrong) [ – ]. A Semiduplex [That kind of abbreviated expression, when the relation of two members of a sentence is such that they need mutually to be supplied, one from the other. See Append.] sentence of this kind, though to us for the most part it seems strange and unusual, did not seem so to the Hebrews. We shall observe an example exactly like this one, below at Heb 12:20. In writing, hiatuses of this kind are usually marked by the pen: but they have place also in speaking, when, in the case of a fact most well-known, and vividly present to the mind of both speaker and hearers, there is said only what is needed, and the other things, which would interrupt the flow of the language, must be supposed to have been said.-, the sepulchre) As they were pilgrims, the first land which they bought was land for a sepulchre; for they were seeking after the heavenly land, their true native country.- ) , viz. . The son was more celebrated than the father; wherefore the latter takes his designation from the former. Emmor was the father of Shechem.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
sepulchre
(See Scofield “Gen 23:4”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
were: Of the two burying-places of the patriarchs, one was at Hebron, the cave and field which Abraham purchased of Ephron the Hittite (Gen 23:16, etc.); the other in Sychem, which Jacob (not Abraham) bought of the sons of Emmor (Gen 33:19). To remove this glaring discrepancy, Markland interprets [Strong’s G3844], from, as it frequently signifies with a genitive, and renders, “And were carried over to Sychem; and afterwards from among the descendants of Emmor, the father, or son, of Sychem, they were laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought for a sum of money.” This agrees with the account which Josephus gives of the patriarchs; that they were carried out of Egypt, first to Sychem, and then to Hebron, where they were buried. Exo 13:19, Jos 24:32
the sepulchre: Gen 33:9-20, Gen 35:19, Gen 49:29-32
Emmor: Gen 34:2-31, Hamor, Shechem
Reciprocal: Gen 12:6 – Sichem Gen 23:17 – the field Gen 33:18 – Shalem Gen 47:29 – bury me not Gen 49:31 – General Gen 50:12 – General Gen 50:25 – and ye 1Ki 12:1 – Shechem Heb 11:22 – faith
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
Act 7:16. The last word in the preceding verse is “fathers,” and they are the ones who were buried in Sychem. No explanation is offered by the historians or critical works of reference of the name of Abraham in the place of Jacob, concerning the purchase of this burying place. But all of them are agreed as to the particulars of the transaction. and hence we may be assured that some incidental fact or custom in use at the time of Stephen’s speech would explain it if we had access to the literature of those days.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
See notes on verse 9
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 16
From Genesis 23:16, it would seem that Abraham purchased his burial-field of Ephron. In Genesis 33:18,19, there is an account of Jacob’s buying a burying-places in Sychem, of the sons of Emmor, there called Hamor. This is another of the instances in which Stephen’s account appears not to correspond respond with the Mosaic history, and of which no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The necessity of finding such explanation depends upon the question whether we consider this address of Stephen as divinely inspired. The sacred writers often record the discourse of uninspired men.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:16 And were {h} carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor [the father] of Sychem.
(h) The patriarchs who were the sons of Jacob, though only Joseph is mentioned; Jos 24:32 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
From Egypt the chosen people eventually returned to the Promised Land. God had been with them out of the land, and He now returned them to the land. Believers in Jesus will end up in the final resting place of Jesus, heaven.
Shechem was of special interest to Stephen. The Israelites buried Joseph’s bones there after their initial conquest of the land (Jos 24:32). Stephen’s allusion to this event was his way of concluding this period of Israel’s history. Moses wrote that Jacob, not Abraham, had purchased the tomb from Hamor in Shechem (Gen 33:19; cf. Gen 23:16; Gen 50:13). This is probably a case of attributing to an ancestor what one of his descendants did (cf. Heb 7:9-10). In the ancient Near Eastern view of things, people regarded an ancestor as in one sense participating in the actions of his descendants (Gen 9:25; Gen 25:23; cf. Mal 1:2-3; Rom 9:11-13). Abraham had purchased Joseph’s burial site in the sense that his grandson Jacob had purchased it (cf. Heb 7:9-10). Stephen probably intended that his reference to Abraham rather than to Jacob would remind his hearers of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling the promises God gave to Abraham. He did this in one sense when Israel possessed Canaan under Joshua’s leadership. Israel will experience the ultimate fulfillment of God’s land promises to Abraham when she enters rest under Jesus’ messianic rule in the Millennium.
Two other explanations of this apparent error are these. Stephen telescoped two events into one: Abraham’s purchase from Ephron in Hebron (Gen 23:1-20), and Jacob’s purchase from Hamor in Shechem. [Note: Bruce, Commentary on . . ., p. 149, n. 39.] Second, Abraham really did purchase the plot in Shechem, though Moses did not record that (cf. Gen 12:6-7), and Jacob repurchased it later because the Canaanites had retaken it. [Note: J. Rawson Lumby, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 164-65. See also Wiersbe, 1:431.]
In Stephen’s day Shechem was in Samaritan territory. He reminded the Sanhedrin that their ancestral deliverer was buried in the land that orthodox Jews despised and avoided. This was another instance of helping them see that they should not think that the only place God worked was in the Promised Land. Stephen had already referred to Mesopotamia as where God had revealed Himself to Abraham (Act 7:2).