Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 7:53
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it.]
53. who have received ] Better, ye who received the Law from Sinai.
by the disposition of angels ] Better, at the ministration of angels. St Paul (Gal 3:19) has the same expression concerning the Law, that it was “ministered by angels.” The LXX. have in Deu 33:2, speaking of the giving of the Law, “On his right hand were angels,” and Josephus ( Antiq. xv. 5. 3) represents the same tradition, “We have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines and the most holy part of our Law by angels.” So Pesikta Rabbathi, par. 21, “There came down with the Holy One to Sinai twenty-two thousand ministering angels like the camp of the Levites.”
and have not kept it ] Read, and kept it not. Stephen here points back along the whole history of the Jews, and shews how the Law, which was intended to lead men to Christ, had not been guarded in its best sense, the spirit having been sacrificed to the letter, and so the result had been that they rejected and slew Him of whom the whole Law was speaking. The Law, given by angels, was the glory of Israel, the perverse use of it had turned to their shame and destruction.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who have received the law – The Law of Moses, given on Mount Sinai.
By the disposition of angels – There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to this phrase, eis diatagas angelon. The word translated disposition does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It properly means the constituting or arranging of an army; disposing it into ranks and proper divisions. Hence, it has been supposed to mean that the Law was given amidst the various ranks of angels, being present to witness its promulgation. Others suppose that the angels were employed as agents or instruments to communicate the Law. All that the expression fairly implies is the former; that the Law was given amidst the attending ranks of angels, as if they were summoned to witness the pomp and ceremony of giving law to an entire people, and through them to an entire world. It should be added, moreover, that the Jews applied the word angels to any messengers of God; to fire, and tempest, and wind, etc. And all that Stephen means here may be to express the common Jewish opinion that God was attended on this occasion by the heavenly hosts, and by the symbols of his presence, fire, and smoke, and tempest. Compare Psa 104:4; Psa 68:17. Other places declare that the Law was spoken by an angel, one eminent above all attending angels, the special messenger of God. See the notes on Act 7:38. It is plain that Stephen spoke only the common sentiment of the Jews. Thus, Herod is introduced by Josephus (Antiq., book 15, chapter 5, section 3) as saying, We have learned in God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our Law by angels, etc. In the eyes of the Jews, it justly gave increased majesty and solemnity to the Law, that it had been given in so grand and imposing circumstances. It greatly aggravated their guilt that, notwithstanding this, they had not kept it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 53. By the disposition of angels] . After all that has been said on this difficult passage, perhaps the simple meaning is, that there were ranks, , of angels attending on the Divine Majesty when he gave the law: a circumstance which must have added greatly to the grandeur and solemnity of the occasion; and to this Ps 68:17 seems to me most evidently to allude: The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even many thousands of angels: the Lord is among them as in SINAI, in the holy place. It was not then by the mouths nor by the hands of angels, as prime agents, that Moses, and through him the people, received the law; but God himself gave it, accompanied with many thousands of those glorious beings. As it is probable they might be assisting in this most glorious solemnity, therefore St. Paul might say, Ga 3:19, that it was ordained by angels, , in the hand of a Mediator. And as they were the only persons that could appear, for no man hath seen God at any time, therefore the apostle might say farther, (if indeed he refers to the same transaction, see the note there,) the word spoken by angels was steadfast, Heb 2:2. But the circumstances of this case are not sufficiently plain to lead to the knowledge of what was done by the angels in this most wonderful transaction; only we learn, from the use made of this circumstance by St. Stephen, that it added much to the enormity of their transgression, that they did not keep a law, in dispensing of which the ministry of angels had been employed. Some think Moses, Aaron, and Joshua are the angels here intended; and others think that the fire, light, darkness, cloud and thick darkness were the angels which Jehovah used on this occasion, and to which St. Stephen refers; but neither of these senses appears sufficiently natural, and particularly the latter.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The disposition of angels: or ministry of angels; the commandments were published from them ministerially; or the Son of God, (called an Angel, Act 7:35), accompanied with the militia of heaven, (for it is a military metaphor), did in the midst of that glorious retinue give the law, Deu 33:2; Psa 68:8; Gal 3:13,19.
And have not kept it; they transgressed the law, though so gloriously delivered by angels; and therefore it was no wonder if they despised the gospel, that was published by so mean and contemptible ministers.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
53. Who have received the law by thedisposition“at the appointment” or “ordination,”that is, by the ministry.
of angels, and have not keptitThis closing word is designed to shut up those idolizers ofthe law under the guilt of high disobedience to it, aggravated by theaugust manner in which they had received it.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Who have received the law, by the disposition of angels,…. Who attended the angel that spake to Moses on Mount Sinai, Ac 7:38 who is the head of all principality and power, and whom he might make use of in giving the law to Moses: hence the law is said to be ordained by angels, in the hand of a Mediator, and is called the word spoken by angels, Ga 3:19 and certain it is, that there were great numbers of angels on Mount Sinai, when the law was given, De 33:2 And so the Jews say m, that
“when the holy blessed God descended on Mount Sinai, there came down with him many companies of angels, Michael and his company, and Gabriel and his company”
Indeed they often say n,
“the law was not given to the ministering angels:”
their meaning is, it was not given to them to observe and keep, because there are some things in it, which do not concern angels; but then it might be given to them to deliver to Moses, who gave it to the Israelites, and so may be said to receive it by the ministration of angels, through the hands of Moses. And now the law being given and received in so grand a manner, was an aggravation of the sin of the Jews in violating it, as it follows:
and have not kept it; but broke it in innumerable instances, and scarce kept it in any; for no man can keep it perfectly.
m Debarim Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 237. 3. n T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 25. 2. Yoma. fol. 30. 1. Kiddushin, fol. 54. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ye who (). The very ones who, quippe qui, often in Acts when the persons are enlarged upon (Acts 8:15; Acts 9:35; Acts 10:41; Acts 10:47).
As it was ordained by angels ( ). About angels see on 7:38. (from , to arrange, appoint) occurs in late Greek, LXX, inscriptions, papyri, Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 89ff., and in N.T. only here and Ro 13:2. At (or as) the appointment of angels (cf. Matt 10:41; Matt 12:41 for this use of ).
And kept it not ( ). Like a whipcracker these words cut to the quick. They gloried in possessing the law and openly violated it (Ro 2:23).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Who [] . Stronger than the simple relative who, and emphasizing their sin by contrast with their privileges : inasmuch as ye were those who received, etc.
By the disposition of angels [ ] . Lit., unto ordinances of angels. Eijv means with reference to. Disposition [] is used by A. V. in the sense of arrangement, as we say a general disposed his troops. The word occurs only here and Rom 13:2, where it is rendered ordinance. The kindred verb diatassw occurs often, mostly in the sense of command or appoint. See Mt 11:1; Luk 3:13. In 1Co 11:34, it is translated set in order. The reference is most probably to the Jewish tradition that the law was given through the agency of angels. See Deu 32:2. Compare Psa 68:17. Paul expressly says that the law was administered by the medium of angels (Gal 3:19). Compare the word spoken by angels (Heb 2:2). Render, therefore, as Rev., as it was ordained by angels.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Who have received the law,” (oitines elabete ton nomon) “You all who received the law (of Moses),” Exo 20:1-17; Deu 33:2.
2) “By the disposition of angels,” (eis diatagas angelon) “By means of disposition of angels,” Divinely appointed ministers, as servants, ordained or set in order by angels, Heb 2:2. The term angels (messengers) here used seems to refer to Divine prophetic messengers of the Law of the Lord, Psa 68:17; Gal 3:19.
3) “And have not kept it,” (kai ouk ephulaksate) “And did not keep or guard it;” It was therefore Israel, not the Lord who kept not the law. He came to keep it, to fulfill it, to do what it required for His Father and a lost world, and He did it, Mat 5:17-18; Luk 16:16; Luk 24:44; Joh 17:4; Joh 19:30.
Response of the Council to Stephen’s Defense
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
53. Who have received the law. They called that fury wherewith they raged against Stephen zeal of the law, as if he had been a forsaker of the law, and a revolt (470) and had enforced others to fall away in like sort. Although he was determined to clear himself of this false accusation, yet he did not go through with his answer. For he could not be heard, and it was to no end to speak to deaf men. Therefore, he is content, at a word, to take from them their false color and pretense. It is evident, saith he, that you lie, when you pretend the zeal of the law, which you transgress and break without ceasing; and as he objected unto them in the words next going before, the treacherous murder of the Just, so now he upbraideth unto them their revolting from the law. Some man will say that Stephen’s cause is no whit bettered hereby, because the Jews break the law. But as we have already said, Stephen doth not so chide them, as if his defense did principally consist in this issue, but that they may not flatter themselves in their false boasting. For hypocrites must be handled thus, who will, notwithstanding, seem to be most earnest defenders of God’s glory, though indeed they condemn him carelessly. And here is also a fit antistrophe, because they made semblance that they received the law which was committed to them, which was, notwithstanding, reproachfully despised by them.
In the dispositions of angels It is word for word, into the dispositions, but it is all one. Furthermore, we need not seek any other interpreter of this saying than Paul, who saith that the law was disposed or ordained by angels, (Gal 3:16😉 for he useth the participle there whereof this noun is derived. And his meaning is, that the angels were the messengers of God, and his witnesses in publishing the law, that the authority thereof might be firm and stable.
Therefore, forasmuch as God did call the angels to be, as it were, solemn witnesses when he gave the Jews his law, the same angels shall be witnesses of their unfaithfulness. (471) And to this end doth Stephen make mention of the angels, that he may accuse the Jews in presence of them, and prove them guilty, because they have transgressed the law. Hereby we may gather what shall become of the despisers of the gospel, which doth so far excel the law, that it doth, after a sort, darken the glory thereof, as Paul teacheth, (2Co 3:0.)
(470) “ Apostata,” an apostate.
(471) “ Perfidiae,” perfidy.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(53) Who have received . . .More accurately, who received.
By the disposition of angels.Better, as ordained of angels; or, more literally, as ordinances of angels. The Greek preposition cannot possibly have the meaning of by. The phrase expressed the current Jewish belief that angels were the intermediate agents through whom Israel received the Law; that it was their voice that was heard on Sinai. Here also St. Paul, in speaking of the Law as ordained by angels (Gal. 3:19), reproduced St. Stephen. Comp. also Heb. 2:2 and Jos. Ant. xv. 4, 3, for like statements. The idea rested mainly on the LXX. version of Deu. 33:2, on His right hand were angels with Him and the thousands of angels as connected with Sinai in Psa. 68:17.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
53. Law angels We have intimated on Act 7:38 that, according to Scripture, the law on Sinai was given by the Angel-Jehovah; but here the law is said to have been given at the dispensation or disposition of angels, in the plural. We understand this plural to be parallel to the plural of the name for God in Hebrew, Elohim. This plural grammarians explain by what they call the plural of excellence, or majesty, such as when a king styles himself We. We prefer to think it arises from the infinite variety and manifoldness of God, as when we call him the Heavenly Powers. So the Angel-Jehovah of Sinai is angels, from the manifoldness of his manifestations on that memorable occasion. Thus for the Hebrew phrase, (Deu 33:2, describing the same scene,) “From his right hand went a fiery law for them,” the Septuagint reads, “On his right hand angels were with him,” where the plural angels is their rendering for the singular fiery law. In this same sense (Heb 2:2) we have the word spoken by angels as being inferior to the utterances of the Son the visible fiery symbol being less than the living reality, Christ. So, also, “ordained by angels,” (Gal 3:19,) used in the same sense.
There is, indeed, nothing requiring us to deny that God was attended by angels on mount Sinai; but there should be more precise proof than we have that the law, or word, was spoken even instrumentally by personal angels before we can adopt that view. The former point is confirmed by several passages. Thus in Deu 33:2, “He shined from Paran, and he came with holy myriads,” (as it should be rendered,) the word myriads probably denotes myriads of angels. Josephus says, “Our best doctrines and holiest laws have been learned from God through angels.” And Philo says, (on the Decalogue,) “There were present at the giving of the law voices visible, flames of fire, spirits, trumpets, and divine men running hither and thither to publish the law.”
This uninspired testimony is over fanciful. Admitting, in deference to Deu 33:2, that Jehovah was attended by personal angels, we doubt that the law was GIVEN by angels in any other sense than the plural of the Angel-Jehovah, unfolding himself by his multitudinous manifestations on the mount.
Have not kept it Though the Angel-Jehovah, amid angel ranks and with manifold unfoldings of his own power, had given the law, these Jews had not kept it.
“You who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and did not keep it.”
But, he is saying, it is not really surprising that they had rejected the Righteous One, for these are the ones who had been privileged to receive the Law as ordained by angels, and still had not kept it. The two ideas went together. The one was preparing for the other, and their failure to do the one resulted in the other.
‘And did not keep it.’ Thus from this all should know who really sought to change the Law of Moses. In actual fact the Pharisees to a man would have admitted to each other that they did not keep the Law fully. It was not the fact of it that they would resent. It was the implication that they were not Law-keepers. Why they struggled to keep it with might and main. But as Jesus had pointed out, that was not God’s Law, it was the Law as determined by man, the Law ‘made by hands’.
The idea that the Law was ordained by and mediated by angels was orthodox Jewish belief, based on their view that the transcendent God could not deal with man directly. This was a basic contradiction to how they actually, (as opposed to theologically), viewed the Temple. Actually they saw the Temple and its ordinances as binding God by their rituals, even though theoretically they did see Him as transcendent. For the idea of angel mediation compare Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2.
Luke probably here expects us to relate this statement to Stephen’s face being like that of an angel when he began his defence (Act 6:15). They had not listened to angel’s then, they did not listen to God’s messenger now.
Act 7:53 . ] quippe qui . Stephen desires, namely, now to give the character , through which the foregoing . . ., as founded on their actually manifested conduct, receives its explanation .
] ye have received , placed first with emphasis.
] upon arrangements of angels, i.e. so that the arrangements made by angels (the direct servants of God), which accompanied the promulgation of the law, [212] made you perceive the obligation to recognise and observe the received law (comp. the contrast, . .) as the ethical aspect of your . Briefly, therefore: Ye received the law with reference to arrangements of angels, which could not leave you doubtful that you ought to submit obediently to the divine institution .
denotes, as often in Greek writers and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 371 [E. T. 496]), the direction of the mind, in view of . Comp. here especially, Mat 12:41 ; Rom 4:20 .
is arrangement, regulation , as in Rom 13:2 , with Greek writers . Comp. also Ezr 4:11 ; and see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 886. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal 3:19 ; Heb 2:2 ; Delitzsch on Heb. p. 49. At variance with linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Elsner, Hammond, Wolf, Krause, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, taking in the above signification, render: accepistis legem ab angelis promulgatam , as if stood for . Others (Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Valckenaer, and others) explain as agmen dispositum , because is often (also in the classics) used of the drawing up of armies ( 2Ma 12:20 ), and of the divisions of an army ( Jdt 1:4 ; Jdt 8:36 ), and translate praesentibus angelorum ordinibus , so that is likewise taken for . But against this view (with which, moreover, would have to be taken as respectu ) there is the decisive fact, that there is no evidence of the use of in the sense assumed; and therefore the supposition that = in this signification is arbitrary, as well as at variance with the manifest similarity of the thought with Gal 3:19 . Bengel (comp. Hackett, F. Nitzsch, also Winer doubtfully, and Buttmann) renders: Ye received the law for commands of angels , i.e. as commands of angels , so that is to be understood as in Act 7:21 ; comp. Heb 11:8 . But the Israelites did not receive the law as the commands of angels , but as the commands of God , in which character it was made known to them . Comp. Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3 : ; and see Krebs in loc.
Moreover, the mediating action of the angels not admitting of more precise definition, which is here adverted to, is not contained in Exo 19 , but rests on tradition, which is imported already by the LXX. into Deu 33:2 . Comp. on Gal 3:19 . For Rabbinical passages ( Jalkut Rubeni f. 107, 3, al. ), see Schoettgen and Wetstein, ad Gal 3:19 . It was a mistaken attempt at harmonizing, when earlier expositors sought to understand by the angels either Moses and the prophets (Heinrichs, Lightfoot) or the seniores populi (Surenhusius, . p. 419); indeed, Chrysostom even discovers here again the angel in the bush.
[212] Angels were the arrangers of the act of divine majesty, as arrangers of a festival ( ), dispositores .
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it .
Ver. 53. And have not kept it ] The Jews were so far from being a law to themselves, (as the Thracians are said to be), that (more like the Athenians) whereas they had excellent laws, but naughty natures, Moribus suis quam legibus uti mallent, they lived not by their laws, but by their lusts rather. (Val. Max.)
53. ] The use of , instead of , so very frequent in the Acts and Epistles, occurs when the clause introduced by it contains a further explanation of the position or classification of the person or persons alluded to, and not when the relative serves for simple identification. See Rom 1:25 ; Rom 1:32 .
] Many explanations have been given. Chrys. , : and c [51] , . Heinsius and Lightfoot understand by . the prophets : Grot., Calov., and Krebs, ‘ prsentibus angelorum ordinibus ,’ taking = in the sense of divisions of an army ( Jdt 8:36 ), in which it never occurs, not to say that will not bear this: Beza, Calv., Pisc., Elsn., Hamm., Kuin., &c., ‘ ab angelis promulgatum ,’ which will not bear ( ): Winer, Gr., edn. 6, 32. 4, b, ‘ as commands of angels ’ (but see below), which, however, was not the fact (Mey., who refers to Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ): the Syriac version, ‘ per mandatum angelorum :’ Vulg. and Calv., ‘ in dispositione (or – onibus ) angelorum :’ Schttg., ‘ per ministerium angelorum .’ These three last are precluded by the foregoing remarks. The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in ref. Gal., . The law was given by God, but announced by angels. The people received God’s law then, , at the injunction (a sense of . amply justified, see Palm and Rost’s lex. , and Polyb. iv. 19. 10; 87. 5: and preferred by Winer in his last edn., ut supra) of angels . So Mat 12:41 , , ‘they repented at the preaching of Jonas.’ The only other legitimate rendering, ‘as the injunctions of angels,’ comes under the objections made to Winer’s former view, above.
[51] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Cent y . XI.?
Act 7:53 . , quippe qui (“ye who,” R.V.), as often in Acts and Epistles not simply for identification, but when as here the conduct of the persons already mentioned is further enlarged upon (Alford), cf. Act 8:15 , Act 9:35 , Act 10:41 ; Act 10:47 , and Winer-Schmiedel, p. 235, but see also Blass, Grammatik , p. 169. : “as it was ordained by angels,” R.V. : at the appointment of, cf. its use in Mat 12:41 , or better as in Act 7:21 = received the law as ordinances of angels ( being regarded as an aggregate of single acts and so with plural “ordinances”), so Rendall, who takes = , and Page, cf. Heb 11:8 , i.e. , it was no human ordinance. But see on the other hand Wendt’s note, p. 192, where he points out that the law was not received as commands given by angels but by God. This was undoubtedly the case, but St. Stephen was here probably referring to the current tradition in Philo and Josephus, and LXX, Deu 33:2 . , cf. Ps. 67:17; Philo, De Somn. , p. 642 Mang., so Jos., Ant. , xv., 5, 3, and also Book of Jubilees , chap. i. (see Wetstein and Lightfoot (J. B.) on Gal 3:19 ). Others again take = , “accepistis legem ab angelis promulgatam” = , so Blass. Certainly it does not seem possible to take = = agmen dispositium ( cf. Jdt 1:4 ; Jdt 8:36 ), and to render “prsentibus angelorum ordinibus,” so that here also = (Meyer and others). Lightfoot (J.) takes the “angels” as = Moses and the Prophets; Surenhusius as = the elders of the people, whilst St. Chrysostom sees a reference to the angel of the burning bush. It must not be thought that St. Stephen is here depreciating the Law. From a Christian standpoint it might of course be urged that as Christ was superior to the angels, so the introduction of angels showed the inferiority of the Law to the Gospel ( cf. Heb 2:2 , Gal 3:19 ), but St. Stephen’s point is that although the Law had been given with such notable sanctions, yet his hearers had not kept it, and that therefore they, not he, were the real law-breakers. : “cum omnibus phylacteriis vestris,” Bengel. Note the rhetorical power of the words cf. Act 7:25 (Page).
have. Omit.
by = unto. Greek. eis. App-104.
disposition. Greek. diatage. Only here and Rom 13:2. The Syriac reads, “by the precept”. Compare Act 7:38 and Gal 1:3, Gal 1:19.
have, &c. = guarded it not.
53.] The use of , instead of , so very frequent in the Acts and Epistles, occurs when the clause introduced by it contains a further explanation of the position or classification of the person or persons alluded to, and not when the relative serves for simple identification. See Rom 1:25; Rom 1:32.
] Many explanations have been given. Chrys. , : and c[51] , . Heinsius and Lightfoot understand by . the prophets: Grot., Calov., and Krebs, prsentibus angelorum ordinibus, taking = in the sense of divisions of an army (Jdt 8:36), in which it never occurs,-not to say that will not bear this: Beza, Calv., Pisc., Elsn., Hamm., Kuin., &c., ab angelis promulgatum, which will not bear (): Winer, Gr., edn. 6, 32. 4, b, as commands of angels (but see below), which, however, was not the fact (Mey., who refers to Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ):-the Syriac version, per mandatum angelorum:-Vulg. and Calv., in dispositione (or -onibus) angelorum: Schttg., per ministerium angelorum. These three last are precluded by the foregoing remarks. The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in ref. Gal., . The law was given by God, but announced by angels. The people received Gods law then, , at the injunction (a sense of . amply justified, see Palm and Rosts lex. , and Polyb. iv. 19. 10; 87. 5: and preferred by Winer in his last edn., ut supra) of angels. So Mat 12:41, , they repented at the preaching of Jonas. The only other legitimate rendering, as the injunctions of angels, comes under the objections made to Winers former view, above.
[51] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Centy. XI.?
Act 7:53. , who) He proves, from the deed which they had perpetrated upon the Christ, that they had not kept the law. Comp. Joh 7:19.-, have received) with subjection, in the first instance.- , into, as to [by] the dispositions of angels) [as being the ordinances established by angels]. This indicates the majesty of the law: Gal 4:14, Ye received me as an angel of God. The angels on Sinai appeared under the appearance of a flame. Comp. Gal 3:19 ( ), Heb 2:2. , at, in respect to, or by reason of, as in Rom 4:20 ( : he staggered not at it in unbelief, as being the promise of God). The Jews received the law as that which was to be regarded in the light that angelical ordinances would deserve to be regarded; namely, with the highest reverence. God has the angels for His ministers. Hence, what is angelic, is certainly also divine.- , have not kept it) with all your phylacteries [alluding to the verb ]. He who believes on Christ, establishes the law: he who sets aside Christ, sets aside the law. Reason would think that these last words of Stephen ought to have been suppressed by him, because he had by this time completed his defence. But in the state of one making confession of the truth, all things ought to be said, which the glory of GOD and the salvation of the hearers demand.
angels
(See Scofield “Heb 1:4”).
have received: Exo 19:1 – Exo 20:26, Deu 33:2, Psa 68:17, Gal 3:19, Heb 2:2
and have: Eze 20:18-21, Joh 7:19, Rom 2:23-25, Gal 6:13
Reciprocal: Exo 20:1 – General Eze 44:8 – ye have not Act 7:38 – with the Act 22:23 – cast
3
Act 7:53. The law which the disobedient Jews were resisting had been given through the agency of angels (Gal 3:19).
Act 7:53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels. That is to say, the Divine law of Moses was announced to Israel, in the first place, by the holy angels acting as the ministers of the Eternal King of heaven; and this glorious law, written by Jehovah and specially communicated to the chosen people by beings not belonging to this earth, you know, neither you nor your fathers have kept! But an important question underlies the statement contained in this verse. Were angels, then, employed in the giving of the law in the desert of Sinai? Now, on reading the simple text in the Hebrew or the English translation, the first impression is, that no such angelic intervention was employed. Jehovah the great Covenant Angel gives, and Moses the judge of Israel receives, the law in its varied and comprehensive details. On the other hand, it is an undoubted fact that all Jewish tradition ascribes to angels an important place as assistants in the giving of the law. So in Josephus, Ant. xv. 5. 3; Herod says: We have learned what is most beautiful and what is most holy in our doctrines and laws from God through the medium of angels. See also the book of Jubilees, written in the first century of our era. There is, however, one striking passage in the dying blessing of Moses, Deu 33:2, which the great Jewish expositors and doctors, as the LXX., Onkelos, the writers of the Palestine Targum, etc., interpret as directly teaching the interposition of angels in the giving of the law. The accurate rendering of the passage in Deu 33:2 is: He came from amidst myriads of holiness, that is, from amidst countless angels who attend Him. The LXX. translation alters the sense of the whole passage. They assume the fact that in the giving of the law, angels were in attendance on the Eternal. Onkelos in his Targum (written first century of our era) thus paraphrases the words in Deuteronomy 33 : With Him were ten thousand saints. The Palestine Targum in its present form, dating from the seventh century, but based on older materials, reads in the same place in Deuteronomy: With Him ten thousand times ten thousand holy angels. The well-known statement of Psa 68:17 : The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, are thousands upon thousands: the Lord among them hath come from Sinai, into His sanctuary; and possibly Num 10:36 : Return, O Jehovah, with the myriads of the thousands of Israel (Perownes translation), teach the same truth that angels, as ministers of the Eternal, assisted in the first solemn giving of the law in the desert wanderings; while St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatian church (Act 3:19), and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Act 2:2), tell us that this Jewish belief which Stephen quotes here, passed without question into the teaching of followers of Jesus.
See notes on verse 51
Verse 53
Here Stephen’s historical narrative suddenly terminates. It is somewhat difficult to say how he considered such a summary of the Jewish history available for the purposes of his defence. Some portions have an indirect bearing upon the circumstances of his case, especially those relating to the Israelites’ rebelling against, and rejecting Moses, (Acts 7:39,40,) from which he may have intended to deduce a warning for his hearers, against rejecting Christ. The general applicability of the discourse, however, is not obvious. To account for the abrupt change which here takes place, from an unfinished historical review to severe reproach and invective, commentators have supposed him to have been interrupted by indications of tumult and violence in the assembly.
7:53 Who have received the law by the {y} disposition of angels, and have not kept [it].
(y) By the ministry of angels.
Their guilt was all the greater because they had received God’s law, which angels had delivered (Deu 33:2 LXX; cf. Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2), but they had disobeyed it. They were the real blasphemers (defiant sinners). Stephen, as an angel (cf. Act 6:15), had brought them new insight, but they were about to reject it too.
The primary theme of Stephen’s speech is that Israel’s leaders had failed to recognize that God had told His people ahead of time that they could expect a change. They had falsely concluded that the present state of Judaism was the final stage in God’s plan of revelation and redemption. We too can become so preoccupied with the past and the present that we forget what God has revealed about the future. We need to keep looking ahead.
"He [Stephen] saw that the men who played a really great part in the history of Israel were the men who heard God’s command, ’Get thee out,’ and who were not afraid to obey it [cf. Act 7:3; Act 7:15; Act 7:29; Act 7:36; Act 7:45]. The great men were the men who were prepared to make the adventure of faith. With that adventurous spirit Stephen implicitly contrasted the spirit of the Jews of his own day, whose one desire was to keep things as they were and who regarded Jesus and His followers as dangerous innovators." [Note: Barclay, p. 53.]
A second related theme is that Israel’s leaders had departed from God’s priorities to give prominence to secondary issues for their own glory (the Holy Land, Moses, the temple). We also can think too highly of our own country, our leaders, and our place of worship.
Another related theme, the theme of Israel’s rejection of the Lord’s anointed servants, also runs through Stephen’s speech. Jesus was another of God’s anointed servants. The Jews had dealt with Him as they had dealt with the other anointed servants whom God had sent them. They could expect to experience the consequences of their rejection as their forefathers had. We need to observe the pattern of humiliation followed by glorification that has marked the careers of God’s servants in the past and to anticipate that pattern in our own careers.
". . . it [Stephen’s defense] is not designed to secure Stephen’s acquittal of the charges brought against him, but to proclaim the essence of the new faith. It has been well said that, although the name of Christ is never mentioned, Stephen is all the while ’preaching Jesus’. He is demonstrating that everything in Israel’s past history and experience pointed forward to God’s culminating act in his plan for the redemption of the world in sending the Christ. The witness of Abraham, Joseph, Moses and David in one way or another underlined the transitory nature of existing Jewish institutions and the hollowness of Jewish claims to have the monopoly of the way to salvation. The presence of God could not be restricted to one Holy Land or confined in one holy Temple, nor could his Law be atrophied in the ceremonialism of the Sadducees or the legalism of the Pharisees." [Note: Neil, p. 116.]
Stephen’s speech demonstrated remarkable insight, but this was more than mere human genius because the Holy Spirit was controlling (filling) him (Act 6:5; Act 6:10). While it is easy to overstate Stephen’s importance, He seems to have understood the changes that would take place because of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus. He did so earlier and more clearly than some of the other leaders of the Jerusalem church such as Peter (cf. ch. 10). He appears to have been an enlightened thinker whom God enabled to see the church’s future in relationship to Israel as few did this early in the church’s history. Many Hebrew Jewish Christians-who still observed the Jewish hour of prayer, feasts, and temple ritual-probably did not appreciate this relationship. Stephen was in a real sense the forerunner of Paul who became the champion of God’s plan to separate Christianity from Judaism.
"So he [Stephen] perceived, and evidently was the first to perceive clearly, the incidental and temporary character of the Mosaic Law with the temple and all its worship. This was the first germ of doctrine which S. Paul was afterward to carry out to its full logical and far-reaching consequences, viz. the perfect equality of Jew and Gentile in the church of God . . .
"S. Stephen then is the connecting link between S. Peter and S. Paul-a link indispensable to the chain. Stephen, and not Gamaliel, was the real master of S. Paul. . . . For ’the work’ of Stephen lasts on till chapter xii (see xi 19), and then it is taken up by his greater pupil and successor-Paul." [Note: Rackham, p. 87-88.]
There have been scholars who believed that Stephen probably did not understand the issues behind the cause for which he died. [Note: E.g., Adolph Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1:50.] However a careful study of his speech reveals that he did.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)